T I M BE R D E S I GN F I L E NO.

TIMBER
Preservation
Guide

Edgar (Ted) Stubbersfield

Copyright © 2012 Rachel Stubbersfield
All rights reserved
ISBN: 0987399403
ISBN-13: 978-0987399403

T
ed Stubbersfield was born in
the small Queensland town
of Gatton in 1950. After
studying to be a pastor in
Brisbane and the UK he returned to
the family business, Gatton Sawmill-
ing Co. A fair question would be, can
anything good come out of Gatton?
Well, Gatton was the home of a Gov-
ernor General of Australia (William
Vanneck 1938). It is also the home of
the best and most innovative hard-
wood producer in Australia, Outdoor
Structures Australia (OSA).
The family had been involved in
sawmilling and building for about
140 years and a lot of knowledge has
passed through the generations. In
1985 we ventured into the footbridge
market (almost by accident) and then
followed public landscaping. Initially
we just did as we were told by con-
sultants who knew very little about
timber. In about 1988 Ted decided he
would come to know the medium he
was working with far better than any
of his competitors and most of the
professionals who used his products.
Ted realised that there were no use-
ful standards and guides for designing
The Author
and building weather exposed timber
structures such as boardwalks. That
led in 1997 to his first formal research
project on boardwalk design, engi-
neering supply and construction. Over
the years there followed a complete
set of guides. These allowed profes-
sionals to design timber structures
of exceptional beauty and durability.
Typically, everybody wants to re-
invent the wheel and the guides were
usually ignored. Invariably, the same
mistakes keep being made over and
over. This little book is an attempt to
remedy this.
In 2012, the time came to close the
manufacturing arm of OSA and to
take on a less stressful lifestyle. Ted
plans to put in writing much of what
he has learnt so the industry does
not have to relearn it. This book is
the first in a series of Timber Design
Files that are intended to allow design-
ers avoid the pitfalls of common but
often bad practice and Standards that
are very inadequate and engender a
false sense of security.
i
 Acknowledgements
This Guide started life as a series in my 2010 newsletters for Outdoor Struc-
tures Australia. When I started writing the expanded document, I had no idea
how far I would proceed as it needed the assistance of many people to come to
completion. I was surprised at how helpful people would prove to be and wish
to acknowledge the encouragement they have been. If this Guide proves to be
of service to you, it is in no small part because of these people.

Greg Jensen, B.E.

Commercial and Regulatory Manager
Lonza Wood Protection

Steven Koch, B. App. Chem/Indust. Chem. M. Env. Eng.

Business Development Manager
Lonza Wood Protection

Dr. Dan Tingley, Ph.D., P.Eng. (Canada), MIEAust, CPEng, RPEQ

Senior Structural Engineer, Wood Technologist
Wood research and Development, Corvallis, Oregon

Afzal Laphir, BSc Eng (Hons); MBA; MIPENZ, MIEAust, CPEng, NPER,
RBP (Vic), RPEQ, RBP (NT)
Engineering Manager
Pryda Australia

Dr Harry Greaves, BTech, DIC, PhD, DSc

Principal
HG Consulting

Doug Howick, FIWSC

Secretary
Timber Preservers Association of Australia

While this book does not claim to represent the views of the Department
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the assistance of two of its officers is
especially acknowledged.

Gary Hopewell, AD AppSc (Forestry), MSc (WoodSc)

Senior Technician, Forest Product Innovations
Agri-Science Queensland

Jack Norton, B App Sc (Chem.), Grad Dip Bus. Admin, Grad Dip Comp.Sc.,
M Tech Mngt, M Phil Chem Eng
Leader Product Performance,
Agri-Science Queensland

The assistance of ENERGEX is also appreciated.

Finally, Dennis and Carol Clark, for their years of friendship, photography, and
for tirelessly taking my poor dyslectic attempts at writing and editing it into a
readable format.

ii
 Table of Contents
Abbreviations v
Introduction 1
Preliminary Matters 2
The Importance of Timber Preservation 2
The Importance of Good Design 2
Natural Durability 3
The Law and Standards 4
Hazard Levels and Timber 4
Preservation Specifications 4
Common Treatment Options 4
Waterborne Preservatives 4
Organic Solvent Preservatives 7
Tar Oil Preservatives 8
Envelope Protection of Natural Rounds 10
Effectiveness of Treatments 10
Treatment’s Effectiveness on Natural Hardwood Rounds 10
Treatment’s Effectiveness on Sawn Hardwood 12
Areas of Over-treatment in AS 1604.1 12
Why Treat Sawn Timber? 14
Hardwood 14
Pine 15
Why H3 and not H5 for Extra Protection 16
H6 Marine 17
A Word of Caution 20
Branding 20
Preservation and Corrosion 22
Factors Affecting Corrosion 22
Detailing Fasteners 24
Fastener Quality 27

iii
 Table of Contents
Preservation and Colour 29
Colour of Preserved Timber 29
Colour as an Indication of Successful Treatment 31
When is a Preservative not a Preservative? 32
Preservatives are not Insect Repellents 33
Special Considerations with CCA 34
How Dangerous is CCA? 34
CCA Fixation 36
What can be Done with Existing CCA Infrastructure? 36
CCA Treatment and Fire 37
Increasing Fire Resistance in Treated Timber 38
Intumescent Paint 38
Treatment and Fire Retardants 38
Preservation Warranties 39
Increasing Value of Warranties 39
Warranty Example 1 40
Warranty Example 2 40
Some Preservation Case Histories 40
CityCat Terminals - A Natural Durability/Preservation Dilemma 41
H5 (CCA) Applications in Playgrounds 42
Untreated Hoop Pine Chamfers 42
Change in Hazard Level Over Time 43
Conclusion 44
Appendix 45
Source of Images 46
Bibliography 47

iv
 Abbreviations
ACQ Ammonia Copper Quaternary
APAS Australian Paint Approval Scheme
APVMA Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
BaP Benzo-a-pryene
BCA Building Code of Australia
CCA Copper chrome arsenic
CBA Copper boron azole
CN Copper napthenate
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation
EP Electroplated
HDG Hot dipped galvanised
LOSP Light Organic Solvent Preservative
NZBC New Zealand Building Code
OSA Outdoor Structures Australia
PEC Pigment emulsified creosote
SS Stainless steel
SUSDP Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons
TMA Timber marketing act
TPAA Timber Preservers Association of Australia
TUMA Timber Utilisation and Marketing Act
TUPA Timber Users Protection Act

v
Introduction

A
very senior engineer at a leading firm of consultants in Brisbane told
me about his ability to very quickly hone in on the mistakes of the ju-
nior engineers fresh out of university. Apparently they are amazed at
this uncanny ability until he breaks the truth to them. Instead of this
being some super human skill he had simply made exactly the same mistakes
when he was young. When it comes to timber preservation I think I have made
my fair share of mistakes too. I shudder at some of the ill informed advice I
gave in my early days in the timber industry. Sadly, it was usually the normal
advice everyone gave. This booklet is intended to guide professional designers
through a maze of complex issues and so avoid mistakes I and others have
made.

The main emphasis of this brief guide is to understand the issues relating to
treatment in weather exposed applications. This Guide will briefly look at some
theory relating to timber treatment and show the requirements of AS1604.1.
This is followed by a more detailed look at practical matters associated with
treatment and includes discussion about whether much of the Standard that
specifiers rely on can actually be achieved. My concern has been that the de-
signer is left with a sense of false security as on many occasions “preservation”
of sawn timber simply has not been achieved.

The Guide concludes with a number of case histories where what is learnt
about preservation and natural durability throughout the following pages is ap-
plied to difficult durability applications.

Disclaimer
The information shown herein does not constitute a complete design so a
Consulting Engineer with skills in both timber design and foundation systems
should be engaged for the structural and foundation design.

1
 Preliminary Matters
The Importance of Timber Preservation
It must be accepted that wood is perishable; timber may suffer deterioration through the action
of insects, fungi and marine boring organisms. This deterioration, however, can be reduced if
conditions are made unsuitable for these destructive agents. Timber preservation uses chemicals
which improve the natural durability of the sapwood, rendering it toxic and thus unpalatable to
insects, fungi and marine borers.

Many timber species proved to be highly durable and have provided long service before the
widespread introduction of the timber treatment industry. De-sapped In-Ground Durability 1
“bush poles” provided the power authorities with a life of fifty years or more.1 Unfortunately,
now there isn’t enough of the most durable timber available to meet the requirements. Preserva-
tion allows a much wider range of species to be utilised, even the least durable. (e.g. pine)

Even when dealing with the most durable timbers it has been found that the sapwood is always
non-durable and will rapidly deteriorate if not protected. For example, the sapwood of ironbark
should be considered no more durable than the sapwood of pine. So the timber preservation
industry provides the dual role of making non durable timbers durable and preserving the sap-
wood of durable and non durable species.

With the declining availability of high durability hardwoods, compounded by the disinclination
by builders to use them due to their cost and weight, preservation of non durable timbers is
critical.

The Importance of Good Design

Timber treatment is not a substitute for good design; rather it
is its handmaiden. Australian engineers and architects generally
enter their profession with a sound knowledge of steel and con-
crete but have very little formal training in timber. While they
have a good understanding of the science involved in calculat-
ing member and fastener sizes, most have little understanding
of the art of timber design. It is an art, and some have jokingly
referred to it as a dark art. Generally I encounter drawings for
projects that are designed for strength, and unquestionably are
mathematically correct, but most are not designed for durabil-
ity. Examples of durability problems that can be avoided at the
design stage are narrow joists that split due to fastener damage,
joints that hold moisture and specifying low grade and/or non Fig. 1. Diagonal crossarm system
invented by the author
durable timbers. No amount of treating will overcome these de-
sign shortcomings.

An example of the primacy of design over treatment is taken from a problematic power line
at back of Mullumbimby in NSW where our crossarm mounting system was trialled. We had
developed and patented a system of mounting crossarms on powerpoles that rotated the arm 45
degrees so the moisture ran off. An extra benefit was that often the top of the arm was partly
shaded during the day. The control arms were incised, pigment emulsified creosote (PEC) treat-
ed tallowwood, mounted in the normal manner and our arms were sap free untreated hardwood
to one of the species in their specification. They were mounted on the same pole. After 3 years

1 Leightley, L.E. Technical and Operational Aspects and In-Service Performance of Preservative Treated Poles in
Proceedings of the ESAA Pole Symposium, Gold Coast, 1980.

2
some of the control arms were being replaced whereas there wasn’t even any mould growth on
our arms!

As a footnote, we never sold any of these crossarm systems. They were a little more expensive,
but only a little more and nothing in comparison with replacement costs. One authority did say
that they never wanted to be locked into a situation where they could only purchase from one
supplier. Outdated design practices continued and some timber crossarms continued under-
performing. In a short period I expect that this will be another market, ideally suited to timber
because of its lack of conductivity, completely lost to substitutes such as fibre composites. Im-
proved design would have seen this industry continue.

Natural Durability
Invariably, successful use of timber in challenging conditions is a combination of artificial dura-
bility achieved through added chemicals and the timbers own natural durability. The heartwood
of all timbers can be classified according to its natural durability (or resistance) against attack by
wood destroying organisms such as termites, borers and decay fungi. The resistance is due to the
presence of special tannins, oils, resins and extractives in the heartwood that repel or kill insects
and decay fungi. Examples of each (in ground) are shown below.

Note: Natural durability only refers to the mature outer heartwood. Sapwood of all timber species
should be considered as being non durable.
Class 1 Timber of the highest natural durability grey box
(in ground) which may be expected to resist decay for grey ironbark
at least 25 years and up to 50 years red ironbark
yellow box
yellow gum
tallowwood
Class 2 Timbers of high natural durability that may jarrah
(in ground) be expected to have a life of 15 to 25 years river red gum
white mahogany
yellow stringybark
red box
spotted gum
white cypress pine
western red cedar
Class 3 Timbers of moderate durability that may be broad leaved peppermint
(in ground) expected to last about 8 to 15 years southern blue gum
Sydney blue gum
brush box
manna gum
candle bark
Class 4 Timbers of low durability that may be mountain ash
(in ground) expected to last from 1 to 8 years. These Douglas fir (Oregon)
timbers have about the same durability radiata pine
as untreated sapwood which is generally hoop pine
regarded as class 4 regardless of species slash pine
Table 1. Natural in ground durability ratings

A common mistake when referring to reference documents is not appreciating that the pub-
lished durability level refers only to the heartwood. The sapwood when untreated is always Du-

3
 rability 4. Some timbers have broad sapwood band so a large portion of a sawn member can be
Durability 4 despite the heart being for example, Durability 2 as in white cypress. We have found
this distinction to be a particular problem with this species.

The Law and Standards

In 1987, the Queensland Government introduced
the Timber Utilisation and Marketing Act (TUMA),
the Act which among other matters controlled the
licensing and operation of treatment plants in that
state. The Queensland act was very similar to the
Timber Marketing Act 1977 in New South Wales
which is still in force at the time of writing. A radi-
cal innovation in the Queensland Act was the in-
troduction of Hazard or “H” levels. The Act, or
more correctly its regulations, nominated six dis-
tinct levels of risk from decay and insect attack.
These were easy to identify and easy to specify.
This innovation was quickly adopted by AS1604
Specification for preservative treatment and now is Fig. 2. The sapwood band varies from slight to major
becoming the standard designation of treatments on these white cypress pine logs.
worldwide, albeit with different terminology. The
integrity of the treatment process in Queensland was initially ensured by a very rigorous system
of plant registration and testing and reporting by Forestry Department inspectors.2

These H levels are so well ingrained in the memory of specifiers that it would be hard to imag-
ine that any designer used to working with timber would actually refer to AS1604 or the myriad
of proprietary lists that are circulating. Despite this apparent simplicity, we have observed that
designers are experiencing the same misunderstandings about the efficacy and practicality of
treatments on a recurring basis. This Guide will try to steer the reader through some complex is-
sues. Problems with specifying timber treatment and problems with durability often come about
through inexperienced designers reading and trying to apply the Standard without understanding
it. Industry hazard lists are simplified and generally have more user friendly information than
the Australian Standard.3 Specifying according to the Standard brings with it an expectation that
something meaningful, achievable and desirable is being specified.

Hazard Levels and Timber

Preservation Specifications
The treatment of timber with preservatives is concerned mainly with the protection of sapwood.
The amount of preservative required in the timber is expressed as its Retention Level. With the
repeal of Queensland’s ‘Timber Utilisation and Marketing Act’ (TUMA) there are now only two
legislated standards that specify the required minimum retention levels for specific hazards and
end uses. The national standard is AS1604.1 (2010), a companion document to the Building Code
of Australia while New South Wales has the ‘Timber Marketing Act’ (TMA). Each standard uses
the same terminology to describe the six main exposure and biological hazards, for example:

2 This practice stopped around 2002-3 and TUMA was repealed in 2011.
3 E.g. Arch Chemicals, Ecowood – Good for Generations to Come (U.D.) brochure has recommendations that are different
from AS1604 for boardwalks over fresh and salt water. Similar recommendations to Arch’s can be found on manufacturers’
websites such as that of Riverland Treated Pine http://www.riverlandtreatedpine.com.au/FAQ.html. (accessed 11 December
2010 and Gunns Timber products http://www.gunnstimber.com.au/products/pine/treatedPineKilnDried/index.php (accessed
December 11, 2010).

4
 Hazard Level: Exposure & Biological Hazard Typical Use
AS1604.1(2010)
H1 – Interior above ground, completely
protected from weather and well ventilated: Framing, flooring, furniture, interior joinery
Beetles and borers only
H2 – Interior above ground. Partially
protected from wetting. Termites and borers Framing, flooring
only
H3 – Exterior above ground subject to Weatherboards, fascia, window joinery, exterior
periodic wetting. Decay, termites and borers framing and decking
H4 – Exterior in ground. Subject to severe Fencing, greenhouses, pergolas and landscaping
wetting. Decay, termites and borers timbers
H5 – Exterior in ground, with or in fresh Retaining walls, piling, house stumps, building poles,
water. Decay, termites and borers cooling tower fill
H6 – SW and NW marine water exposure. Boat hulls, marine piles, jetty cross bracing,
Marine borers landing steps.
Table 2. Hazard levels.

Within any particular charge of timber in a treatment cylinder a range of preservative penetra-
tions and retentions will be achieved depending on the moisture content, sapwood to heartwood
ratio, species, treatment schedule and inclusion of additives. This range should be understood as
presenting acceptable and better treatment as opposed to unsatisfactory and satisfactory treat-
ment. Table Two shows the hazard levels for different applications.

AS1604.1 provides strict guidelines for the amount of chemical preservative required in the
sapwood of timber, its penetration into the sapwood and also the heartwood in order for the
wood to perform as we expect. The penetration requirements for the different Hazard Levels
are tabled below.

Hazard Durability Sapwood Heartwood

H1 1 and 2 100% Penetration not required
3 and 4
H2 1 and 2 100% Penetration not required
3 and 4 5mm (<35mm) 8mm(>35) envelope
H3 1 and 2 100% Penetration not required
3 and 4 5mm (<35mm) 8mm(>35) envelope
H4 1 and 2 100% Penetration not required
3 and 4 10mm envelope
H5 1 and 2 100% Penetration not required
3 and 4 20mm envelope
H6 1 Penetration not required
2 to 4 20mm envelope1
Table 3. Penetration of heartwood.
1
The H6 requirements are very simplified.

5
 Common Treatment Options
Waterborne Preservatives
Understand the image above and you
understand the strength and limitations
of all commercially indeed available
timber treatments in Australia.4 Shown
in Figure 3 is the end of an untreat-
ed powerpole which has been treated
with a dye to differentiate the sapwood
from the heartwood (sometimes called
truewood). If you had a hand magni-
fier and looked at the structure of the
wood you would see that the sapwood
is porous and that the pores in the
heartwood are filled with gums and
resins etc. To effectively treat that pole,
dry it for at least 4-6 weeks to remove
some free moisture, place it in an auto-
clave, draw a high vacuum and the po- Fig. 3. Sapwood/heartwood, the key to understanding timber
rous sapwood empties of air, flood the treatment.
2

autoclave with treatment solution. The samples

2
Note the bands of truewood in the sapwood which can make chemical analysis of
awkward as there is no treatment in these areas. These untreatable areas
vacuum inside the wood very quickly are counted in the sample that is analysed.
draws the preservative into the sap-
wood. Finally, top off with some pressure. This is called the “full cell” process.

Even with the further application of as much vacuum and pressure as you can achieve, and
pumping for days on end, the solution will still not pass from the sapwood into the heartwood.5
While there are different processes using more recent solvent-borne technology, the large major-
ity of treatment in Australia is with waterborne treatments. While the process of treating with
waterborne preservatives is old technology, it remains good and cheap technology. However, it
does have some limitations. These are:

• Some species simply cannot be treated reliably with this process and should not be offered
to the public as “treated” timber. They are known as refractory species and were listed
under the regulations of TUMA.6 Examples of refractory species are white cypress and
Douglas fir
• The sapwood swells during the treatment process and has to be redried. This is particularly
an issue with pine
• The green or brown colour “advertises” the presence of preservative and
• The cost of treating pine, particularly with some of the CCA replacements, is high.

These drawbacks have led to the increasing popularity of different ways of treatment, the most
common in domestic settings being light organic solvent preservation (LOSP).

4 E.g. CCA, ACQ, Tanalith E and, boron.

5 Penetration is said to be possible but the pressure required is 1000 lb per sq inch, Wallis, Norman K. Australian Timber
Handbook. (Sydney: Angus and Robinson, 1956), 221.
6 Keith R Bootle’s Wood in Australia, Second Edition (North Ryde: McGraw Hill Australia, 2005) gives the suitability of
a species for treatment under its species notes. Note that this recommendation is accurate in regards to waterborne
preservatives but not necessarily for solventborne e.g. White Cypress p. 270.

6
Organic Solvent Preservatives
Light organic solvent preservative (LOSP) derives its name from the solvent (normally white
spirit) which is used to carry a range of organic insecticides and fungicides. These solventborne
preservatives are normally used to preserve softwoods in H1 through to H3 applications. For
H3 applications, LOSP must be used in conjunction with “an appropriate finish system to in-
hibit mould growth on the surface and reduce the effects of weathering”.7 This finishing system
has to be maintained. Weathering is also sometimes reduced on a short term basis through the
addition of waxes and resins but these can cause problems
with subsequent coating systems. Residual solvents may also
interfere with paint systems.

It is common for LOSP treated pine products such as hand-

rails and doorjambs to be pre-primed with water based prim-
er but often this primer is not of high quality. A poor quality
primer will affect the performance of the finishing system
needed to protect the timber. In the absence of product
branding and/or painting finish guidelines, the paint quality
can be checked by scribing an “X” on the painted surface, Fig. 4. Decay in LOSP treated handrails.
firmly applying adhesive tape over it and then lifting. If any
paint adheres to the tape, then all the primer should be removed and repainted with oil based
primer.8

Unlike treatment of hardwoods which is normally done on unseasoned timber, LOSP is only
used with seasoned product. Because the spirit does not wet the timber which would otherwise
cause it to swell, timber can be treated after all processing has been completed. The treatment is
clear but often has colours added to distinguish the hazard level.

Some LOSP applications have not been as successful as hoped. Figure 4 shows a handrail with
severe decay after 15 years. It was evident one year earlier and, having felt all the “spongy” ends in
the 20 plus panels, it was evident that the decay was present under the paint a long time before it
was visible. My experience has been that builders tended to treat the treated pine9 handrail as they
did the durable hardwoods, i.e. they cut it to length and sealed the ends with paint. It is necessary to
seal with an “approved” preservative, not paint. CN oil and emulsion will work well but may have
compatibility issues with top coats. Two other products manufactured by Arch that are approved
with their treatments but do not have compatibility issues are Ecoseal, a copper and permethrin
spray with a greenish colour or Endseal, another spray which uses zinc napthanate and permethrin.
Endseal has the advantage of showing where the timber has been sealed. Other preservative end
sealers such as Osmose’s Protim Timbercare XJ are available from different manufacturers.

Without a preservative being applied to the end, painting can compound the decay problem, not
avert it. Fine cracks in the paint let in moisture but do not allow it to escape. Research by DPI
Forestry in Queensland has shown that painted and unmaintained housed joints in the weather,
decay more rapidly than unpainted.10
7 Timber Queensland. Technical Data Sheet 22, Light Organic Solvent Preservative Treated Timber (March 2006), 1.
We would consider an “approved paint system” to be one that has been approved under the Australian Paint Approval
Scheme (APAS). The APAS is administered by the Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO) and is believed to be of a higher standard than the Australian Standard. Approved paints will carry the APAS
approval on its label. 
8 Timber. Technical 22..., 1- 2. This is also in keeping with the Australian Paint Manufacturers Federation Fact Sheet
T4 “Preparation of LOSP Pre-Primed Timber” dated Feb 1 2007 and also found summarised in Solver Paints Product
information sheet LOSP Treated Pre Primed Timber SS-127.
9 When we operated a hardware store we sold many pieces of LOSP treated handrail. Sadly not one of our suppliers
advised that we needed the preservative and not one of our customer asked for it either. I may have sold the piece in
the image.
10 Francis, Lesley P and Jack Norton. Above-Ground Durability Estimation in Australia, Results after 16 Years Exposure,

7
 There is some use of LOSP in hardwood, (e.g. for borer protection in Victorian Ash). Our own
experience was less than satisfactory. We had been exporting spotted gum 88x19 decking to Japan
but the colour of the treatment in the sapwood, first CCA then Tanalith E11 was causing buyer
resistance. We saw LOSP as an answer as it was clear and would give the impression that the tim-
ber was not treated. We kiln dried some sappy 100x25 spotted gum to 10-12% moisture content,
dressed it to profile and sent it to an LOSP plant in Brisbane for treating. When we sent samples
to the laboratory for testing we found they failed penetration requirements! On a practical basis
we could do no more than this so let the idea, which sounded excellent in theory, slide. Arch did
assure us later this would have been caused by an inappropriate schedule12 at the treatment plant,
not with the practicality of achieving the required end result. One producer, N.K. Collins of
Toowoomba has reported success with 19mm white cypress domestic decking however.

Tar Oil Preservatives

Creosote is the earliest preservative used in the commercial preservation industry. The preserva-
tive value of less refined products from coal was known as early as 1681 and a patent for preserv-
ing timber with creosote using the full cell method was granted in 1838 to John Bethell. This is
the treatment process described earlier under waterborne treatments and is sometimes called by
his name. Creosote, derived from the high temperature distillation of coal tar, is a very complex
compound with over 100 constituent chemicals.13 While individually none of its constituents is
particularly effective, there appears to be a synergism between the aromatic hydrocarbons and
phenolic compounds. These compounds effectively protect timber against decay, insect and ma-
rine organism attack.14 It is reasonable to call it a “dirty” process because of its strong odour, its
propensity to soil clothes and produce burns similar to sunburn on skin exposed to contact. This
is further compounded by the tendency for creosote treated timber to bleed for some time after
treatment. These bleeds can form tar-like deposits known in the trade as “crud” which, because
of their fungitoxic effect, should not be removed.15

In Australia, creosote is listed by the APVMA under Schedule 7 of the Standard for the Uniform
Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons (SUSDP), based on concerns about carcinogenicity.16 The pri-
mary concern, benzo-a-pryene (BaP), is fairly common in the environment and has been reported
at up to 1000 times the concentration in car exhausts than in the air at a creosote treatment plant.17
Australian high temperature creosote contains much less than 50 ppm of BaP.18

Creosote’s long track record has proved it to be a very effective preservative19 but, despite the ef-
fectiveness, its overall popularity as a preservative has understandably diminished. At the time of
writing there are only two plants in Australia using high temperature creosote.20 Some of the tra-
Document IRG/WP 05-20314. Paper given at the 36th Annual Conference of the International Research Group on
Wood Protection, Bangalore April 2005, 10ff.

11 Alternatively known as Copper Azole in Australia and in the US as Wolman E or Copper Boron Azole (CBA).
12 This is the term used in the trade to describe the solution strengths, times (or trigger points), pressure and vacuum
used to produce a batch of treated timber.
13 Campbell-McFarlane, Jacqueline. Creosote and its Use as a Wood Preservative. U.S. Environment Protection
Agency http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/creosote_main.htm. Accessed April 10, 2012. The actual
composition of creosote varies greatly around the world.
14 Mai, C. and Militz, H. Chemical Wood Protection in Wood Production, Wood Technology, and Biotechnological Impacts.
Kues, Ursula (Ed). (Universitatsverlag Gottingen, 2007), 261.
15 Greaves, H. Pigment Emulsified Creosote (PEC) – Improved Oil-Based Preservatives. Ann. Rev. Div. Chem. & Wood
Technol (CSIRO,1985), 26.
16 APVMA. Creosote. http://www.apvma.gov.au/products/review/completed/creosote.php. Accessed April 11, 2012.
17 Greaves, Harry. Current Trends in protection of Timber. 13th All Australia Timber Congress Nov 1990, 7
18 Greaves. Current…, 7. He reported that, at the time he wrote the EEC classed BaP content from 50-1000 ppm as
harmful but not toxic.
19 An industry source commented, “I think creosote products have performed better [than CCA] over the years, mainly
because they were over treated in the first instance”. Pers. Com. April 11, 2012.
20 High temperature (distilled at the high temperature of 900-1300 C) creosote is solid below approx. 40 C and is usually

8
ditional uses for creosote were for poles and rail-
way sleepers but creosote is seldom used for this
now in Australia. While creosote has no place in
domestic timber applications, it is still meeting a
strong demand in the agricultural sector.

Creosote treated timber has some distinct ad-

vantages over CCA. Pine treated with CCA can
be more brittle than if it was treated with creo-
sote. Livestock do not like the taste of creosote
and so do not chew it, a problem with CCA. The
oil also works as a water repellent. Further, while
CCA treated timber continues to burn after the
ignition source has been removed, aged creosote Fig. 5. Creosote treated horse fences Image courtesy
treated timber is less likely to catch alight.21 One of Gunns Agricultural.
manufacturer, Koppers, claims that it performs
even better than CCA in acid sulphate soils.22 It
might be described as a H5+ treatment especially as it controls some forms of rot, (e.g. soft rot),
for which CCA gives inadequate protection.23 Practical disadvantages are poor paintability and
glueability with normal products. Despite these difficulties, gluing processes have been devel-
oped in the US for repairing railway bridges.24

Given the popularity of creosote in southern states it is curious that it was/is rare in Queensland.
This is partly explained through Queensland unions placing an embargo on Creosote for many
applications such as powerpoles but that does not explain why it is not used widely in rural ap-
plications.

A modification of creosote treatment is Pigment Emulsified Creosote (PEC). This process was
developed in Australia by the CSIRO in collaboration with Koppers. The input of Electrical
Trades Union, which had an obvious interest in a safer treatment, surely was is unique. PEC is
comprised of roughly 70% high temperature tar oils in water emulsion along with high quality
controlled micronised (reducing the particle size) colouring agents.25 The colouring agents are
not used primarily as a colourant, instead they help lock in the active constituents of the preserv-
ative which are inclined to bleed, especially in hot weather. PEC is claimed to be easier to handle
than straight creosote. The oil is still heated but to about 30 degrees C less, giving substantial
energy savings and partly offsetting the higher material cost. The surface of PEC treated timber
is less sticky and the oils do not easily exude from the timber.26 Acceptable surfaces have been
achieved within days of treating.27 On top of all this, the odour is far less than with normal creo-
sote. PEC treatment is used in conjunction with CCA to produce double treated marine plies for
temperate and tropical waters. PEC is a much cleaner version of creosote but like HTC, it also
causes problems when it comes in contact with the skin.
maintained at 90-100 C for treating. The VPI process is used. This is opposed to the “high temperature” hot and cold
bath (open tank) process. An unregistered creosote plant using this process was established a few kilometres from the
writer’s home. The creosote caught fire one night!
21 Wilkinson, J.G. Industrial Timber Preservation. (London: Associated Business Press, 1979), 133. If a fire is established
it burns more vigorously and with more smoke than untreated wood. This precludes its use in mining.
22 Koppers Wood Products Pty. Ltd. Treated Hardwood Foundation Piles - Case Studies. Rev 0, 2009. 3, 6.
23 In Australia, one variety of brown rot is resistant to creosote. Most decay in Europe is due to one form of Brown Rot
and in the US most degradation is from a number of forms of brown rot. Bagley, S.T. and D.L. Richter. Biodegredation
of Brown Rot Fungi in The Mycota, A Comprehensive Treatise on Fungi as Experimental Systems for Basic and Applied
Research Vol 10 Industrial Applications. Ed. By Karl Esser, Joan W. Bennett, H. D. Osiewacz. (Berlin: Springer-Verlaq,
2002), 338. Australian Brown rot is related.
24 Tingley, Dan. Pers. Com. April 14, 2012.
25 Greaves. Pigment…, 27. Mai describes the European version of PEC as using 80% medium temperature creosote
which only has a low smell intensity. Chemical…, 262-3. Medium creosote is also reported as having a lower incidence
of the potential carcinogen BaP, Greaves. Environmental…, 7.
26 Mai. Chemical…, 262-3.
27 Greaves. Pigment..., 32. Though a small minority of product inexplicitly still continued to exude creosote.

9
 The many advantages of PEC over straight creosote ensure that PEC will continue to have an
important place in the Australian market despite its cost. When combined with CCA, PEC re-
mains the only option for marine piles in warmer waters.

Envelope Protection of Natural Rounds

With the untreated pole end in Figure 3, it doesn’t matter that heartwood cannot be penetrated
with the preservative as there is a complete circle or “envelope” of preservative encasing the
heartwood. If there are no cuts or holes put through the treated sapwood the pole is “pre-
served”. Durability through preservation is only achievable on a practical basis in natural rounds
with at least an unbroken 12mm sapwood envelope.28

While there may be no real difference between a house stump and a powerpole in that they are
both H5 applications the treatment requirements are not the same. Poles are produced under
AS2209 and require what might be called a H5+ treatment. There is a far more rigid species
identification requirement to confirm the Durability Class and width of the sapwood band.29
The treatment levels may vary also depending on customer requirements and may be higher than
a normal H5 treatment. Further, there is a tight quality and straightness specification. For struc-
tural H5 hardwood applications, specifiers are better referring to AS2209 than AS1604. This
happens automatically if rounds are purchased from manufacturers who also manufacture poles.

Effectiveness of Treatments
Treatment’s Effectiveness on Natural Hardwood Rounds.
Potential Areas of Degrade at Groundline of H5 Natural Hardwood Rounds

Termite Attack External Decay Internal Decay

Fig. 6. Groundline degrade. Images courtesy of ENERGEX and are used with permission. Images
represent extreme examples. Poles would not normally get to this condition.

28 AS3818.11-2009 5.2. (a). Blackbutt only has a narrow sapwood band so the 12mm restriction can be an issue with that
species. Ironbark by comparison also has a narrow sapwood band but has natural durability so it would be misleading
to think of a pole in that species has been “preserved” through treatment. Durability 4 in ground poles requires a 35mm
sapwood barrier but no penetration into the heartwood. Compare that to no minimum and 20mm respectively with
AS1604.1, see Table 3 above.
29 Some Durability 2 in ground species may not have the minimum 12mm sapwood band. The width of the band is not an
issue if you do actually have a Durability 1 in ground timber.

10
Generally speaking, natural hardwood rounds with sapwood
treated to H5 can expect a life span of 25 to 50 years.30 This life
expectancy is defined more closely31 in AS/NZS7000 as 45 to 55
years for In-Ground Durability Class 1 poles and 35 to 45 years
for Durability Class 2 poles. (Most poles are spotted gum which
is In-Ground Durability 2.).32 When determining the whole of
life cost of major public infrastructure such as our power dis-
tribution network, there is a vast economic difference between
the high and low end of the generally accepted span or even
the ten year span of AS/NZS7000 between Durability 1 and 2
poles. The design life of a power pole in South East Queensland
in the ENERGEX area is 50 years33, the top of this range. The
service life is another matter. Because lines are constantly being
upgraded and therefore the poles being removed from service
for reasons other than failure, it is difficult to state an accurate
service life. However, it is believed to be in excess of 40 years.34 Fig. 7. Softrot at groundline.

It is only possible for EN-

ERGEX to plan to achieve the
upper end of the time range by
a planned five yearly inspections
and treatment, if necessary, at
the groundline. This inspection
looks for rot and termite activ-
ity. If degrade is found, Boron
and Fluoride salts are applied.
Pole bandages are an impor-
tant part of the maintenance.35
When poles reach 100% of the
design strength (when the diam-
eter reduces to about 80% but
the calculation is complex) they
are either removed or staked Fig. 8. The areas in red, delineating sapwood, are the only portions that will be
with steel “pole nails”.36 treated.

While CCA treatments are very effective, they are not totally effective against soft rot in all euca-
lypts37 so inspections are critical. Any structures using H5 treated natural rounds cannot simply
be installed and then forgotten. Like power poles, they must be subject to regular inspection
and, if necessary, maintained. Figure 7 shows the effect of soft rot at ground-line.38 When soft
rot became an issue the retention requirements were substantially increased from 24 kg per m3
30 It was found initially that CCA treated poles “were less effective in service than previously expected”. Leightley,
Technical..., 10.
31 Table D4.

32 Robson, Peter. Pers. Com. August 15, 2011. Mr. Robson was Senior Engineer Maintenance Standards, Network
Maintenance of ENERGEX at the time of the advice.
33 Robson, Peter. Pers. Com. August 5, 2011. There may be a move in time to a 45 year life in accordance with AS/
NZS7000.
34 Robson. Pers. Com..., 2011.
35 Robson. Pers. Com..., 2011.
36 Robson. Pers. Com. August 5, 2011.
37 Norton. Pers. Com. Sept 1, 2011. It was reported that high levels of CCA did not protect against soft rot attack but that
the severity was lessened. Leightley. Technical…, 12. Some brown rots are an issue also.
38 This image also appears in a paper presented at the ESAA Pole Symposium, Gold Coast, 1980 by H. Greaves and K.J.
McCarthy entitled Inspection and Maintenance Procedures for Ground-Line Defects in Wood Poles. It is said to be of a
eucalypt pole after 5 years service!

11
 to 30 kg per m3.39 It is likely that a modern
CCA pole would have a better service life
than one treated under TUPA (the predeces-
sor to TUMA).

Treatment’s Effectiveness
on Sawn Hardwood
Figure 8 shows a pack of bollards prior to
treatment. If you look carefully you will see
that I have blocked in the sapwood with red.
This is the only part of that pack that will be
treated. It might be 5% of the total volume
of that particular pack. It doesn’t matter if
Fig. 9. Permitted want and wane.
3
3
AS2082-2007, clauses 2.1.2 (n), 2.2.2 (n), 2.3.2 (n) and, 2.4.2 (n).
you treat the sapwood to H3, H4, H5 or even
H6. It has no effect on the remaining 95%
of the timber. If the highlighted timber was
simply missing, as in forklift damage, or allowed to decay, it would still meet all grades recognised
under AS2082 Timber, Hardwood, visually stress graded.

To understand how little treatment can mean on sawn timber, consider the following: as a treater
and processor, I can take a piece of blackbutt (Durability 2 in ground and, in our opinion and
experience at the lower end of the group) without any sapwood, paint on some treatment chemi-
cal with a brush to colour it and I can still call it H5. I can then take it to a planer and dress off
the external colouring and I can still call it H5! It is not the equal of a piece of spotted gum or
ironbark with minimal sapwood treated to H3 even though AS5604 says it is.

Figure 9 shows what specifiers generally think they are specifying when they nominate 150x75
and what they are actually asking for. By far the majority of 75mm thick members40 have so little
sapwood on them that, with decay, it would meet the structural requirements of AS2082-2007.
A specification that says “F14 hardwood treated to H5” then becomes virtually meaningless as
a specification for structural timber. The key is to define the species correctly so the untreated
95% in this case (rarely is sapwood of structural members more than 15%) of the timber has
suitable natural durability. Best practice in design and construction is still also essential. That is
the strength of our Deckwood and Joistwood specification and systems.

The difference between the two types of treatment (envelope on rounds and partial treatment
of sawn) is that blackbutt with an envelope protection has proven to be an acceptable powerpole
whereas treated sawn blackbutt was never a good decking for a variety of reasons.41

Areas of Over-treatment in AS 1604.1

The revision of the preservative treatment standard in 2010 still saw the issue of overtreat-
ment of sawn members found in the previous standard continue with classifications that are
not achievable. An example of the impossibility is the requirement of H6 for boat building. The
penetration requirements cannot be achieved in either hardwood or pine. This is an area where
39 The requirements under the Timber Users Protection Act (TUPA) was 24kg per m3 (Leightley, Technical..., 6) but was
increased under its successor TUMA. The 30kg figure represents 1.2 (percent mass/mass for CCA treated hardwood x
2.7742 for Type C formulation for CCA /100 X 900kg density per m3 which equals 30kg m. Denser timber would have a
higher requirement.
40 The recommendation from OSA’s Boardwalk Design Guide and Deckwood Selection Guide for any joists where a 14#
screw is used is for a minimum 75mm width to avoid damage by the fasteners.
41 As indicated by this species’ exclusion from Queensland specifications for crossarms, Main Roads bridges and for
railway sleepers.

12
users can only rely on natural durability or on alternative methods such as anti-fouling paint.
Notation to this effect should have been made in any revised standard.

Over-treatment is found in the requirement for

decking. Bridge decking is required to be treated
to H5, wharf decking to H5, jetty decking to H4
(down from H5 in the 2000 standard) and H3
for patios. The last comes with a note that CCA
treatment is not acceptable for this application
due to [Australian Pesticides and Veterinary
Medicines Authority (APVMA)] requirements.
It logically follows, and the practice is, that these
higher treatments will be met with CCA.
Consider bridge decking. The minimum size that
would be expected is 200x125 and the amount
of sapwood on a piece of timber that size will be
well under the 20% permitted loss as shown in
Table 1 which is deemed to be acceptable under
AS2082.42 Further, all bridge decking is supplied
against very tight species specifications written
by the various Main Roads authorities. These
species are all Durability Class 1 Above Ground
Timbers, i.e. the heartwood automatically is H5
treated or untreated.43 H3 (above ground struc-
tural) is an adequate treatment for the non struc-
tural amount of sapwood. The more so when it
is considered that the sapwood will be protected
by a bitumen running strip. Further, when the
timber eventually is removed from service44 the
unnecessary presence of CCA should preclude
its use in recycling. This product, along with Fig. 10. Turpentine bollard showing typical low quality
of this species. The recycled timber in this project was
wharf decking (for the same reasons) should reported to have shrunk 10% in a short period.
be nominated as H3 but with a footnote saying
“when used in conjunction with the relevant State’s Main Roads bridge timber specification”.

The same table continues the same requirements for treating jetty (and frequently applied to
boardwalk) components as was required in 2000. This is H5 for fresh water and H6 for salt water.
As has been mentioned, it is impossible to achieve these levels in sawn timber through preserva-
tion with waterborne preservatives. Fortunately, as with bridge decking, H5 is automatic when
appropriate timbers are used e.g. relying on a Main Roads specification. Unfortunately, trying to
explain to a non timber person that an ironbark or spotted gum joist is H5 when its sapwood is
treated to H3 is a frustrating, if not impossible, task45.

H6 as mentioned can only be achieved through natural durability and the only timber available is
turpentine. The timber when unseasoned is inappropriate46 for use in jetties and structures due
to its high shrinkage, high natural feature and lower resistance to impact forces.47 So, ultimately a
42 This 20% figure is recognised as not being structurally important in clause 6.2 (b) (i) (B).
43 AS 1604.1-2010 5.2 (a).
44 Premature bridge failure is not because of treatment to H3 instead of H5. Rather inappropriate building practices are
usually the issue e.g. the use of decking spikes and vertical rather than horizontal bolts. No amount of treatment will
make up for this.
45 The design life of a spotted gum joist treated to H3 in South East Queensland as determined by the Timberlife software,
is 85 years, reflecting the adequacy of industry practice of treating to the lower level.
46 Timber Queensland, Technical Data Sheet 7, March 2006, Page 1. See further reference to turpentine under H6
marine.
47 Bootle. Wood..., 345.

13
 sawn H6 application is inappropriate. These products also should be treated to H3 in accordance
with industry recommendations but qualified with a note about species selection as mentioned
above.

Another area that needs clarification is the reference to being “occasionally submerged” in salt
water. Does an extreme but short lived tide every couple of years come under this description?
I have found that these words are being interpreted to such extremes.

My grave concern is that, if the Hazard Classification table is not corrected, designers will con-
tinue to rely on specifying unachievable H levels instead of designing appropriately. Fine points
of detail in the selection of species, design e.g. dampcourses, and construction will be of far
more importance than the introduction of CCA.

Why Treat Sawn Timber?

If waterborne treatments are not going to “preserve” sawn timber, just stabilise the sapwood,
and if the amount of untreated sapwood, at least in hardwood, is usually insufficient to make
the timber non structural, then why treat it at all? There are a number of reasons for doing so.

Hardwood
For non lyctus-susceptible timbers,48 the issue is generally not for structural, particularly with
75mm members. An exposed ceiling beam of blackbutt with a high proportion of sapwood will
exhibit no degrade of the sapwood and does not require any treating. Perception and expectation
are important reasons for treating external timbers. There is expectancy among many purchas-
ers that, if these timbers are not coloured by the treatment chemical, they are simply unfit for
purpose. For commercial decking, the stabilisation of the sapwood is important because, if it
decays, trip hazards are likely to occur. The lighter domestic decking may, in places, be virtually
all sapwood, so treatment is critical.

Lyctus, the main reason for hardwood treatment

Lyctus attack in roof truss Lyctus attack in roof member

Fig. 11. Images courtesy Trevor Smith, South Coast Home Check

The situation with Lyctus susceptible timbers such as spotted gum and tallow wood is very dif-
ferent. These timbers have higher levels of starch in the sapwood. The lyctus beetle (sometimes
called the powder post beetle for good reason) lays its eggs in the sapwood and its larvae will eat
the sapwood and literally turn it to powder. This is nothing short of a nightmare inside a house,
48 AS 2982 lists the lyctus susceptibility of commonly used hardwood species in tables A1-A3.

14
 especially so when it occurs with decorative items such
as polished flooring.

We have found that there is an expectation that timber

Fig. 12. Lyctus larvae. Image Courtesy of Doug
Howick
can be supplied without sapwood. Our observation of
the ex. 38 and 50mm decking we run is that perhaps
one piece in three contains significant amounts of sap-
wood. To supply sapwood free timber, in effect, means
that much of a very limited resource is wasted and this
is poor stewardship. Very few of the ex. 75mm joists
and bearers would be totally free of sapwood.

While treatment kills any active larvae in the timber it does not kill
the eggs! The beetle can emerge in time leaving sometimes just a
small pinhole but more often tracking in the timber. This can be a
nuisance but is not structural if the sapwood is limited. The struc-
tural effect is similar to the effect of cylindrical auger beetle attack
shown in the section Preservatives Are Not Insect Repellents. The treat-
ment does however prevent further attack.

Pine
The philosophy behind pine treatment is exactly the opposite to
that of hardwood. With hardwood, we start with a large portion
of untreatable but durable heartwood and we need to preserve
the lesser and usually, because of its small percentage, non struc- Fig. 13. Emergent attack in treated
tural sapwood. With pine, we have a small portion of heartwood49 timber by lyctus.
which is untreatable and we must preserve the structural non du-
rable sapwood. This takes treatment from being something that is frequently no more than cos-
metic to something that is critical - preservation in the true sense of the word.

Fig. 14. Untreated heart in pine extending Fig. 15. Heart has decayed leaving outer
to the outside surface. treated sapwood.

Pine has exactly the same issues as hardwood. The outer sapwood band treats well and easily
but it is very difficult to treat the heart. The image on the left (again treated with a dye), shows

49 The untreatable heart is not meant to exceed 20% of the cross section for H2-H6 e.g. AS1604.1-2011 5.2 (b) (i) (A).
Frequently though heartwood is more than 20%.

15
 the untreated heart in a pine bollard. This bollard has been incised,
that is, it has gone through a machine that puts thousands of small
slits or pockets in the face. These pockets fill with chemical and
allow penetration into the heartwood (sort of). The unavoidable
consequence of not treating the heart is seen in Figure 21. Notice
the decay is circular around the inside of the treatment.

When I tried to introduce a low priced treated pine bollard instead

of hardwood, I discussed our intention with the DPI Forestry
which confirmed our opinion. To comply with the requirements
of TUMA we would have to use incised pine. I purchased a trailer
load, treated it and sent the samples for analysis for registering our
plant for H4 pine. A full third of the samples failed because of
poor penetration. I re-treated them and retested them. Again they
failed. I checked our process with the pine supplier. Yes, it was
similar to theirs, but then they mentioned they only incised to a
depth of 3mm and 3mm was the penetration in the failed samples,
not 10mm. I could not sell Fig. 16. Incised pine.
the product legally and
auctioned the load off at a substantial loss. It begs the
question about the quality of the treatment of the H4
treated pine that is sold un-incised.

I was not deterred by this and decided to try again but I

could not find one pine supplier in Australia that would
supply me with the pine I needed. The problem was that
we advised them that we would be sending the timber
on to a laboratory for testing to confirm the 10mm pen-
Fig. 17. Graveyard trial to test efficacy of
etration.
treatment.
How did the situation of inadequately treated large sec-
tion sawn pine arise? Treatment plants under TUMA (in Queensland) had to be registered to
treat to a given hazard level50 with a separate licence for the same H level in pine and hardwood.
To obtain this registration and to be allowed to sell their treated product, the plant operator had
to be able to prove that they could treat to a given chemical retention. Samples of product were
submitted for analysis and inspection of penetration. In practice, it is relatively easy to achieve
this in natural rounds so testing was done with them. However, that same licence also allowed
the operator to treat sawn timber to the same H level. As most timber is used in H3 or lower
applications there was often enough penetration to work satisfactorily. In H4 and H5 situations,
the failure to gain enough penetration is likely to lead to failure. An example of the difficulty
in achieving a reliable structural member in pine is the Ironwood product of Carter Holt Harvey.
Their treated and incised H4 pine is not suitable for structural applications.51

Why H3 and not H5 for Extra Protection

We have often encountered situations where above ground applications (H3) are nominated to
be treated to in-ground levels (H5). Surely, we should be reducing our chemical usage whenever
possible and one way we can do this is by only using sufficient chemical. But how much is suf-
ficient? Isn’t it better to over treat and be certain? The amount of chemical needed to reach dif-

50 Part 4. Preservative treatment of timber, Section 19. Authorisation to use preservative treatment and registration of
brand.
51 Despite the description page on Carter Harvey Holt’s website saying Ironwood is “Not suitable for structural applications
e.g. structural retaining walls”, another of their brochures IRONwood Garden Walls shows the product being used
structurally!

16
ferent levels was determined through establishing graveyard plots, in various locations around
Australia, of timber treated with different levels of chemicals. The amount of decay was meas-
ured over an extended period of time. In above-ground applications, the decay hazard is lower
so there is no need for extra chemical in the sapwood.

Over treatment through over specification also involves increased and unnecessary cost. This
table shows the cost of chemicals for different hazard levels. These 2011 prices are before the
treater adds profit.

Ultimately, the APVMA requires that the treatment chemicals be used in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions.

Chemical Hardwood Softwood

H3 H4 H5 H3 H4 H5
CCA $5.52 $10.17 $17.43 $32.11 $53.23 $84.50
Tanalith E $17.06 $33.12 N/A $99.24 $176.47 $327.79
ACQ $15.44 $38.81 $66.92 $80.64 $205.06 $324.86
Table 4. Treatment Costs/m3. 4
4
The assumptions are: for hardwood, uptake 220 litres m3, sapwood 15%, 10% safety figure, 30% moisture content, CCA
cost 5.40 kg, ACQ cost $24.00 kg. Tanalith E cost $5.80 kg. For pine the assumptions are for sawn landscaping products with
uptake of 550 litres m3, sapwood 80%, safety figure 20% and moisture content of 20%. Costs are determined by proprietary
software owned by Arch Timber Protection (Aust).Pty. Limited.

H6 Marine

Fig. 18. End attack of pile off-cut after 11 years Fig. 19. Envelope protection broken by notch and
on sea bed. bolt.

The General section that introduces the requirement for H6 under AS1604.1 2010 repeats the
phrase “experience has shown” four times. Presumably, this is a tactful way of saying that a
lot of what passed for preservation simply did not work. I have been guilty of supplying piles
double treated with CCA when that was permitted under Standards. It proved to be a fruitless
though costly effort.

Envelope protection of natural rounds with a double treatment of CCA and pigment emulsified
creosote has proven extraordinarily successful in marine piles. The image in Figure 18 was taken
at Baker’s Marina in Pittwater, NSW. When the original marina was built in 1968 turpentine piles
were used. When the marina was extended in 1972 the owners used Koppers double treated

17
 marine piles, the off-cuts from the piles
simply dropped in the water.52 During
inspections of the piles in 1982 a diver
was sent down to recover some off-cuts.
Toredo had heavily attacked the heart-
wood as it was exposed at both ends but
did not touch the H6 envelope. So, if the
pile is embedded deeply and the top is
above the high tide mark there should
be no serious attack over its service life.
This 1982 inspection reported the con-
dition of the piles at low tide being “as
new”. At reinspection in 1993 the tur-
pentine piles were badly damaged but
the double treated marine piles were still
Fig. 20. Marine attack of CCA treated timber on the Gold Coast. as new. In 1998, three of the piles were
removed to temporarily modify moor-
ing facilities for a large vessel and after
Examples of Marine Durability
26 years the same piles were reinstated
Species Class when the vessel left!53
spotted gum 4
Actual life expectancy will vary dramati-
blackbutt 3 cally throughout Australia as hazards
red ironbark 2
vary considerably. The application could
involve direct exposure to the ocean, or
turpentine 1 in a more sheltered area such as a marina
Table 6 from AS5604-2005 Table A1.
or on a tidal river which is less severe
still. Marine organisms are more aggres-
sive in warmer water so an application in
Cairns will have a much shorter life than one in Sydney. This is, after all, the most aggressive en-
vironment that timber is likely to be used in. Whatever the environment, a longer life expectancy
can be achieved over simply using turpentine piles.

Invariably premature failures are attributable to bad specification and building practice, not the
product itself as shown in Figure 19 where we see a marine pile from near Kiama that is failing.
Firstly, it failed because it had the wrong treatment. It was CCA-treated which is not allowed
north of Bateman’s Bay in NSW. Even if treated correctly, it would still have failed as the sap-
wood was notched and drilled in the tidal zone. The answer is to use a bigger pile that does not
need bracing where there can be attack. Figure 20 shows marine attack on a pile treated with
CCA only from the Gold Coast. It is evident that the CCA has offered no worthwhile protection
against marine borers. It was later reused as a bridge girder by someone in a misguided attempt
at economy.

As for sawn timber, again it cannot be treated to H6 because you cannot achieve an envelope
protection. You must rely on natural durability. The only commercially available54 Australian tim-
ber with the highest level of natural durability in a marine application is turpentine. On drying,
it shrinks 12%, has lower resistance to impact forces, splits, collapses, has a lot of natural feature
and, in general, is a very undesirable timber. (It is, however, a good decking when kiln dried and
carefully graded).55 Specifying sawn timber for a true H6 application, in our opinion, is not a

52 This should not be done as PEC can bleed from the end grain of the timber and produce a very thin oil slick, Koppers
Wood Products Pty. Ltd. Treated Hardwood Marine Piles Case Studies Revision 0, 2009, 4.
53 Koppers. Treated ..., 4.
54 AS5064-2005 also lists satinay and belian. Satinay has very limited availability but Timber Queensland advised was
available near the North Coast, Coolola areas. Belian is imported.
55 Timber Queensland. Technical Data Sheet 7, March 2006, 1.

18
 wise option. The superstructures of marinas
and decks are only a H3 application. This view
is in keeping with industry technical publica-
tions and guides.56

This claim, however, is contrary to AS 1604.1-

2000 and 2010 Table D1 which asked for H5
Treatment above fresh water and H6 above
salt water for jetties. Are these Standards incor-
rect? Jack Norton, Programme Leader - Tim-
ber Protection Programme of Horticulture
and Forestry Science Division, Department of
Fig. 21. H5 posts with addition of sleeves for a marine
application.
Primary Industries and Fisheries (who was re-
sponsible for administering the treatment pro-
visions of TUMA in Queensland) said:

“In response to your questions about the most appropriate hazard class for jetty com-
ponents, I propose to have the matter raised at the next meeting of Australian Standards
Committee TM6. In my opinion, timber that is exposed out of ground subject to periodic
moderate wetting and leaching is subject to a Hazard Class H3 exposure. In Table D1 of
Australian Standard AS1604.1, jetty components are listed as being exposed to a H5 (fresh
water) or a H6 (salt water) Hazard. I believe that the intention here is for material that
comes in contact with the water through immersion or tidal action. In my opinion, mate-
rial above the water should be considered to be a H3 exposure hazard; however I will raise
the matter at the Standards Committee with a view to reviewing the current classification.”

Similar advice was received from another committee member, Colin McKenzie, Manager, Tim-
ber Applications and Use with Timber Queensland. The Standard had to be read with common
sense. The foundations which are in constant contact with water are the only part that must be
H5 or H6. H6 through chemical means on sawn hardwood is unachievable in every Australian
grown sawn hardwood as penetration of 20mm is required for marine durability 2 to 4 species.
No penetration is required for marine durability 1.57

Natural pine rounds are generally considered unsuitable for H6 treatment. The timber actually
treats very well but the knot cluster is untreatable and can be attacked by marine organisms.58
This is unfortunate as there are situations where the light weight and uniform size of the pine
posts are very desirable. Such an application is a boardwalk foundation in a mangrove environ-
ment. A practice we have found satisfactory is to treat to H5 and add a physical barrier to prevent
attack. This is a long standing effective practice.

Physical barriers can be so effective in preventing marine attack that they challenge the life expec-
tancy (but not the simplicity) of H6 treated marine piles. The piles salvaged from the Picnic Bay
jetty at Magnetic Island (off Townsville) revealed that after fifty years in this environment the
condition of the ironbark piles with this form of protection is very good.  It was reported that
even in ungrouted areas there was very little attack as well’59 It must be remembered that marine
attack is more active in tropical waters which makes this result all the more remarkable.

56 E.g. Timber Queensland. Technical Data Sheet 7, March 2006, 1.

57 Analysis of 200x200 untreated (i.e. free of sap but coloured by the treatment) turpentine and ironbark with the Timberlife
software shows 50% residual bending strength after 15 years and 5 years respectively. A 200mm double treated marine
pile using a marine durability 2 natural round with 25mm envelope of sapwood is 45 years by contrast. The figures are
based on Brisbane.
58 AS 1601.1-2010 says in Table H6.2 that pine is suitable when double treated but we disagree due to the effect of the
knot cluster.
59 Kochanek, Simon. Pers. Com. November 28, 2011. Mr. Kochanek is Principal Structural Engineer of Bligh Tanner
Consulting Engineers.

19
 Fig. 22. Untreated but sleeved ironbark Fig. 23. Grouted ironbark pile from Magnetic
piles installed at Picnic Bay Jetty, Island is in sound condition.
Magnetic Island. Installed 1959.
Images courtesy of Bligh Tanner Consulting Engineers.

A Word of Caution
The legal requirement of where CCA can be used in Appendix 1. Be very careful what you are
purchasing. Remember also that the levels of chemical can also be much lower. Table 7 shows a
comparison between standards is based on timber of 850 kg/m3.

Use in Malaysia Malaysia U.K. Australia Application Example

Malaysia Kg/m3 % m/m % m/m % m/m Australia
Salts Oxide Oxide Oxide

C5 8 .47 .6 .6 H3 decking

C4 12 .7 1.0 1.0 H4 sleepers

C3/C2 16 .94 1.0 1.6 H5 poles

C1 32 1.87 1.7 Not permitted H6 Marine

above Perth piles
lattitude

Table 7. Different international treatment standards.

Fig. 24. Pole identification disk.

Branding
The treatment brand consists of three groups of numbers and letters, e.g. 049 70 H2. The first
three numbers identify the treatment plant, the second set refers to the treatment chemical used
(70 is for permethrin) and the last two are the hazard level to which the sapwood is protected. For
many years, I have viewed the branding of sawn hardwood as an exercise in futility at best, mislead-
ing at worst! By contrast, with sawn pine, incised to the correct depth, branding is meaningful and
should be accurate.

20
 The only meaningful branding of hardwood I
have seen is the identification system used on
power poles, a product which has protected sap-
wood surrounding unprotected heartwood (en-
velope protection). The production of power-
poles is tightly controlled with full documenta-
tion by the producer, especially of the species,
from the forest to sale and then monitored by
the power authority from installation to the end
of its service life. At a nominated height above
ground, a disc is inserted with the manufactur-
er’s pole number, species, size and other infor-
mation as required under the individual specifi-
cation. That disc may be secured by a nail and
remains with the pole its entire life.

By contrast, consider sawn hardwood, a brand is attached or stamped in the end that says, say, H3.
Most purchasers do not understand that that refers only to the sapwood which, I have argued,
for most pieces is well within the 20% want and wane limits, meaning failure of the treatment is
not going to affect the structural integrity should the sapwood decay. The remaining heartwood,
if produced in Queensland, is usually at least a Durability 2 In-Ground species making the tim-
ber a H5 piece of timber according to the letter of the Standard (but not necessarily in reality).
The example of a treated, then dressed piece of blackbutt has been given. The branding in these
cases can either under represent or over represent the durability of the timber. The branded end
is then cut off and disposed of and with that any record of the treatment plant and hazard level
is lost. There was no provision under TUMA to supply a certificate which, at least, has a chance
to get into the file and provide a permanent record. Despite that, specifications should require
that a certificate of treatment be supplied.

My concern with branding is that it engenders a sense of false security. Few purchasers associ-
ate the brand with just the sapwood but consider that it reflects the whole, even when the piece
may contain no sapwood. At times, branding could not be further from the truth. Some years
ago our family was selling a small country sawmill we owned. The purchaser was a sawmill that
only cut landscaping timber. We explained that the forestry allocation we had at the time was in
an area which was predominantly rose gum. Rose gum is a Durability 3 In Ground timber with
a small sapwood band and most definitely is not suitable for ground contact. “No worries,” was
the reply, “We will just take it to the treatment plant and they will stamp it H5”. Where does
responsibility lie, with the sawmill or with the treater? Under TUMA it lay completely with the
treater, but consider his dilemma, sawn rose gum looks just like forest red gum which is Dura-
bility 1 In Ground. Material should not be presented to treatment plants that cannot be easily
identified and treated.

With the repeal of TUMA it is not clear for Queenslanders, and for other States that do not have
a similar Act, what the actual requirements, as opposed to common practice, are for branding.
There is no mechanism within those States to register treatment plants to generate the first three
numbers of the brand. The BCA is now probably out of step with the complementary Acts or
lack thereof. Many items do not even come under the BCA, e.g. agricultural applications while
some items are sold as products, not as treated pieces of timber. The insistence by NSW forestry
on all timber coming into the State being branded with a number of a plant registered by that
State, though not necessarily situated there, could possibly even be construed as a “restraint of
trade across borders”.

21
 Preservation and Corrosion
Factors Affecting Corrosion
The obvious part of the testing regime for registration of a preservative that applied when TUMA
was in force was to determine if the compound did actually preserve the sapwood. But equally
important was the need to determine if the preservative corrodes fasteners or even the treatment
plant itself. Obviously, fasteners must be as durable as the timber. Over the history of preservation
research, otherwise effective treatments have been rejected because of corrosion problems.60

Virtually all timber has some level of acidity. Spotted gum has a pH range of 4.6 to 5, (outside of the
problem range of 4.3 or lower), while gray gum is more acidic at 3.8 and can have increased rates of
corrosion.61 This natural acidity impacts upon corrosion and means that corrosion must be considered
whether the timber is treated or not. Fortunately, corrosion is seldom an issue in weather protected
seasoned timber. Irrespective of whether a preservative is used or not, corrosion in fasteners is tied
directly to moisture in the timber. When the moisture is below 20% (preferably 15 to 17%), there is no
conductivity which leads to corrosion. If you are dealing with kiln dried timber that is under a roof, or
the timber quickly dries to that moisture, corrosion is not an issue.62 This is why nailplates with a thin
galvanised coatings63 are still successful in hardwood used internally and in a non marine situation.64 By
contrast, treated, unseasoned roof battens will cause galvanised and zincalume sheeting to corrode.65
But fasteners near the ground line in posts will commonly be at least 20% and therefore corrosion
(and decay) is a problem.66

Fortunately, corrosion can be countered by a combination of good building practices and correct
choice of fasteners. I have observed that many designers do not give due attention to good building
practices, as there is a misconception that saying “Treated to H5” covers all sins of omission.

Two treatment types, LOSP and oil-borne have proven not to present any associated risk of en-
hanced corrosion. There are two basic materials applications for waterborne preservatives in weather
exposed applications. One is in timber such as pine where there is actual treatment present, i.e. pre-
served timber in the real sense. The second is in durable timber that is coloured on the outside but
has no or little treatment present. As has been emphasised earlier, probably the only treatment that
many bolts actually encounter when fastening two pieces of ‘treated” hardwood is the colouring on
the outside. It must be stressed that problems associated with fasteners in treated timber are often
not a matter of corrosion due to the treatment, as often there has been no “preservation”. Certainly,
corrosion of the fastener will promote associated decay in timber, but decay of the timber in a poorly
detailed joint without associated fastener corrosion will cause failure also.

Fasteners corrode in timber when an electrochemical cell is created. The head of the fastener “be-
comes the cathode and the embedded part of the fastener becomes the anode because of its oxygen
deficient environment. In the presence of an electrolyte, corrosion will proceed because of the cur-

60 Davis, Robin I. Timber Preservatives and Corrosion, International Research Group on Wood Preservation, Working
Group III, Preservatives and Method of Treatment. (Document IRG/WP/3228) Prepared for the 14th annual meeting
Gold Coast, 1983.
61 Bootle. Wood..., 60-1. On this scale a pH of 0 is highly acidic, 7 is neutral and 14 is highly alkaline. The scale is
logarithmic with a 10 fold jump between each unit.
62 Cooper, Graham. Pers. Com. Feb 22, 2012. This communication was a copy of an internal email regarding corrosion
in nail plates written by Afzal Laphir, Engineering Manager, Pryda. This email advised that any problems that Pryda
experienced were always related to wet or corrosive environments. Even without any corrosion from the environment or
the treated timber, the nailplate is likely to be squeezed out of the timber when subjected to constant wetting and drying.
63 These are made from sheet with a relatively thin pre-coating of zinc (around 20 microns).
64 Cooper, Pers. Com. cites advice from Osmose that any nail plate used with ACQ has to be hot dipped galvanised or
stainless steel. This advice is found in their Naturewood ACQ and Lifewood CCA brochures both dated 2006.
65 Bluescope Steel. Corrosion, Contact with Timber, Technical Bulletin CTB-13 Rev 4, 2008, 1.
66 Davis. Timber..., 3.

22
rent flow that occurs between the anodic and cathodic sites”.67 There are four major factors that are
generally recognised as influencing corrosion. These are moisture content, wood species, preserva-
tive treatment and the presence of decay (micro-organisms). We would add a fifth - fastener quality.

The most important of the four recognised factors is moisture content when it is above 20%. Con-
stant wetting and drying of timber, with its associated expansion and contraction, results in the wood
cracking and splitting. This allows moisture to enter. A well maintained paint system fills the pores
and so seals the surface and protects the timber. (Conversely, a poorly maintained system aggravates
decay by trapping in moisture). The by-products of the corroding fastener can release nutrients and/
or alter the pH in the area around the fastener and so stimulate fungi that destroy the wood. Alkali
hydrolysis (where alkali chemicals break down complex molecules into their basic building blocks)
and oxidation can occur in the wood around the fastener. This wood becomes soft and absorbs and
holds moisture, causing the fastener to corrode.68 Withdrawal resistance is thereby lowered.

Historically, galvanised fasteners have generally been used with success on CCA treated timber used
externally but in situations that quickly dry. Corrosion of galvanised fasteners in these situations is
only slightly more than with untreated timber.69 When the environment is moist, corrosion becomes
a major issue, especially when the fasteners are aluminium.70 Borates corrode mild steel in a similar
manner to CCA but when the fastener is galvanised there is less corrosion. Chemical replacements
for CCA (Tanalith E, ACQ) are said to be slightly71 more corrosive to mild steel than CCA itself.
These two treatments contain considerably more copper than CCA. The amount of corrosion is also
affected by the amount of chemical used to treat the timber.72

The extent of corrosion in fasteners in ACQ and Tanalith E treated timber has generally been as-
sessed by accelerated testing, not through independent inspection of real life or quasi-realistic appli-
cations.73 The conclusion of long term exposure trials conducted by BRANZ concluded in 2011, was
that “it was impossible to correlate the corrosion of metal in timber exposed to a high temperature
and humidity environment to the corrosion rate under real service conditions”.74 The study went on
to conclude that incorrect interpretation of the different accelerated tests has led to incorrect mate-
rial election and structural design.75

While the chemicals present in the CCA formula are thought to provide passivation effects to the
steel, the new chemicals do not contain such inhibitors.76 Long term testing was undertaken by
BRANZ in a relatively benign sheltered marine application, (5 km from an estuary). The results
showed increased early corrosion rates in H4 ACQ of 3.5 times that of H4 CCA in mild steel and at
least 7.4 times with fasteners with zinc coatings. That corrosion slowed in time but, after 3 years, the

67 Anonymous. “Fastener Durability in Timber”, Corrosion Management Industrial Galvanisers, Ed. John Robinson, (May
2005),18.
68 Robinson. Fastener..., 19.
69 Kear, G. M.S. Jones, P.W. Haberecht. Corrosion of Mild steel HDG Steel and 316 Stainless Steel in CCA CuAz and
ACQ treated Pinus Radiata. Corrosion and Prevention Conference of the Australasian Corrosion Association Inc, Gold
Coast, 2005. Paper 064, 2.
70 While it is unlikely that aluminium fasteners will be used there is a real risk of corrosion through direct contact with
aluminium flashings, windows and doors.
71 “Slightly” is disputed by Bootle who claims corrosion in Tanalith E and ACQ is more than double that of CCA, Wood...,
62. The amount of corrosion depends on the coatings or lack thereof. Kear’s testing shows up to five times the
corrosion for mild steel without coating in ACQ, Kear. Corrosion..., 1. Kear observed (pp 3) that corrosion testing is
accelerated and does not necessarily reflect real life.
72 Arch Wood Protection, Inc. and Arch Treatment Technologies, Inc Hardware Recommendations for Treated Wood June
6, 2006, 1. Surprisingly with ACQ in testing undertaken in New Zealand, corrosion of Galvanised fasteners was found to
be inverse to the hazard level, Kear, Corrosion..., 8.
73 Li, Z.W., N.J. Marston and M.S. Jones. Corrosion of Fasteners in Treated Timber. (Branz, 2011), 6.
74 Li. Corrosion ..., 5. These trials were conducted at two sites, one very close to breaking surf and the other five km from
a sheltered tidal estuary and protected by hills. These are both areas where manufacturers recommend stainless
fasteners but galvanised are frequently used.
75 Li. Corrosion..., 5.
76 Li. Corrosion..., 1.

23
 figures were 1.4-1.9 times for mild steel and 3.1-3.6 for zinc. Corrosion at the site close to breaking
surf was only a little higher.

Among their findings was that:

• mechanically plated screws did not work with any preservative containing copper77
• The corrosion behaviour of zinc coated fasteners should be of great concern as, “if the tim-
ber gets wet, it is doubtful that hot dip galvanised nails and mechanically-plated screws will be
able to meet the durability requirements of the NZBC and relevant New Zealand Codes”78
• The sound condition of the head did not necessarily reflect the condition of the shaft79
• Stainless performed well without obvious signs of corrosion80 either 316 or 304 should be
used as a “sensible interim precaution”81 to reach the 50 year durability requirement
• A lot more work has to be done on researching fasteners under different environments to find
out what the long term (>15 years) effects of corrosion are.82

Generally speaking, corrosion severity is as follows: Untreated - CCA - Tanalith E - ACQ.83 As ACQ
and Tanalith E are difficult if not impossible to tell apart and usually specified side by side it is neces-
sary to assume the worst case for corrosion.

Coastal environments will need special consideration but sound and well proven recommendations
are available for this. Two other areas that need specific consideration are heavy industrial areas for
which recommendations are not easy to find and swimming pools. The combination of chloramines
and human sweat will cause even 316 grade stainless steel to fail but this is due to stress corrosion
cracking, not treatment.84

Detailing Fasteners
Advice commonly given recommends that to cor-
rectly detail fasteners, the service moisture content
should be below 20%.85 This can be wishful thinking.
It is impractical to dry any member more than 50 mm
thick and very large size timbers, e.g. power poles, will
always be above 20% at their core. Most structures
will involve timber 75 mm or more thick. Any fasten-
ing regime for larger members must be able to accom-
modate members that are above 20% moisture at the
time of installation and for a considerable period dur- Fig. 25. Suggested detail for fastener
ing service. In addition, when using vague and virtu- longevity.5
ally meaningless specifications such as F14 it must be
assumed that species with higher corrosion potential 5
From Davis, Robin I. Revised Jack Norton Corrosion of
Metal in Contact with Wood Revised August 1988, 2.
will also be supplied and fasteners again need to be
specified accordingly.

Some of the recommendations for use of fasteners with treated timber are sound, some are
impractical. The recommendation to keep timber off the ground is very sound as this lowers
the moisture in the timber. So also is the advice to provide adequate ventilation and detailing so
moisture does not pool at the fastener. We would not entirely agree with the advice to avoid cou-
77 Li. Corrosion..., 65.
78 Li. Corrosion..., 66.
79 Li. Corrosion..., ii.
80 Li. Corrosion..., 65.
81 Li. Corrosion..., 66.
82 Li. Corrosion..., 66.
83 Kear. Corrosion..., 11.
84 Refer to Pryda’s Technical Update on Corrosion Resistance of Trusses over Enclosed Swimming Pools (May 2007).
85 Robinson. Fastener..., 21.

24
pling timbers of dissimilar porosity.86 There can be very good structural reasons to do this. We
would use H3 treated pine as bearers in our shelter sheds in conjunction with hardwood posts.
This would not work with untreated pine of course. The advice to avoid wood/metal interfaces
near the waterline is sound but moving that connection under the waterline would cause early
failure in a marine application.87

Clear direction for additional corrosion resistance for fasteners, nailplates and strapping for dif-
ferent environments is not given in the BCA or The Residential Timber-framed Construction
Standard, AS1684-2010 series. The Standard specifies in Clause 1.15 that “all metal used in struc-
tural timber connections shall be provided with corrosion protection appropriate for the particu-
lar conditions”. With clauses like “level of corrosion protection shall take into consideration”,
the responsibility for choosing the correct corrosion resistance was passed to the specifier.88

The Timber Preservers Association of Australia (TPAA) has a very simple recommendation for
fasteners in CCA – “Hot dipped galvanised nails, bolts and coach screws should be used in cor-
rosive environments, e.g. swimming pool structures, marine structures, [and] in the immediate vi-
cinity of the sea-coast, where air-borne salt spray represents a very severe hazard to metal fittings
and fixings”.89 This is not in keeping with one of their member’s, Arch Chemicals, recommenda-
tions. It is far from adequate and can lead to premature failure.90 There is no recommendation by
TPAA for non-chrome, non-arsenic treatments.

Two very useful guides for the Australian specifier are published by Pryda and Arch Chemicals.
Arch Chemicals’ publication for the Americas, Corrosion and Hardware Recommendations for Treated
Wood91, is the document used as the basis for recommendations by that company for Australia.
It is reproduced in simplified form which removes information only relevant to North America.

Recommendations for Copper Azole and CCA Treated Wood(1)

Important Note: In severe environments having an unusually high corrosion hazard such as those that
are continuously wet or within 5 miles (8 km) of salt water, in critical architectural applications where
appearance is of great importance, and in structural applications of an especially critical nature or where
an exceptionally long service life is required, the use of hardware having corrosion durability equivalent to
or greater than 304 or 316 stainless steel should be used

Indoors Protected Outdoor Coastal Wood

Always Dry From Weather In Weather Applications Foundation &
(<15% MC) Dampness OK Regular Wetting Other Critical
Applications
Fasteners Mild Steel, HDG, MG, HDG, MG, 304/316 SS 304/316 SS
EP(2), Copper Copper
HDG, MG, 304/316 SS 304/316 SS
Copper,
304/316 SS

86 Robinson. Fastener..., 21.

87 Robinson. Fastener..., 21.
88 Pryda. Technical Update Corrosion Resistance of Pryda Products Feb. 2012, 1.
89 Timber Preservers Association of Australia Fasteners in CCA Treated Timber. URL http://www.tpaa.com.au/
fastenerscca.htm. Date accessed 25 March 2012.
90 I am aware of a boardwalk in the Cairns region where galvanized bolts were used on the seafront and bolt replacement
started after only six months.
91 Arch Wood Protection, Inc. and Arch Treatment Technologies, Inc. Hardware Recommendations for Treated Wood.
June 6, 2006, 2-3.

25
 Connectors HDG (3), HDG, HDG, HDG, 304/316 SS NA
– Copper 304/316 SS 304/316 SS
Light gauge 304/316 SS
steel
Connectors HDG, HDG, HDG, 304/316 SS NA
– 304/316 SS 304/316 SS 304/316 SS
Heavy duty
Welded
steel

Flashing Copper Copper Copper 304/316 SS Copper,

(4) 304/316 SS 304/316 SS 304/316 SS 304/316 SS
HDG (3) HDG HDG

Table 8 Corrosion protection with Copper Azole, and CCA.

Borates & Dricon® Fire Retardant Treated Wood(1)

Indoors Always Dry
(<15% MC)
Fasteners Mild Steel, EP, HDG, MG,
Aluminium, Copper, 304/316 SS
Connectors – Light EP, HDG, MG 304/316 SS
gauge steel
Connectors – Heavy HDG, MG 304/316 SS
duty welded steel
Flashing HDG, MG Aluminum Copper
304/316 SS
Table 9. Corrosion protection with Borates and Fire retardant treatments.
Protected Can be damp for extended
periods
HDG, Aluminium, Copper, 304/316 SS
HDG. 304/316 SS
HDG -ASTM A123 304/316 SS
HDG,MG Aluminum Copper
304/316 SS

Notes to Tables:

(1) Key to Metals in Tables: HDG: Hot-dipped galvanised steel MG: Mechanically galvanized
steel EP – Electroplated SS: Stainless Steel
(2) Arch regards the use of hot-dipped galvanised fasteners as preferable to using non-galvanised
or electroplated steel nails, though these are regarded as acceptable when attaching framing to
copper azole treated timbers if that wood has been dried after treatment and will remain dry in a
H2 application. Their recommendations point out, but do not take issue with, the International
Residential Code which allows non galvanised bolts when the diameter is ½” (12mm) and larger,
even for foundation bolts. We would question the wisdom of this.
(3) Standard galvanised strapping is regarded as acceptable for fastening copper azole treated
wood to foundations providing it is used in a H2 application.
(4) Aluminum in the presence of moisture is subject to dissimilar metal corrosion when in con-
tact with either CCA or copper azole treated wood. “Aluminum should only be used in normally
dry applications where a barrier can be installed that
(a) provides complete separation of the aluminum (without penetrating fasteners) from the treat-
ed wood and that,
(b) will remain intact for the service life of the flashing. Aluminum nails, screws, fasteners and
connectors should not be used in wood treated with copper based preservatives”.92
92 Arch. Fastener..., 4.

26
As far as fasteners with ACQ are concerned, I was not able to find guidelines similar to those that
were available from Arch for their CCA alternatives. Further, Osmose refused categorically to as-
sist in providing any information about their recommendations. Further digging found that they
appear to have no recommendations! Information on their brochures available on the internet
simply said “Osmose fastener recommendations for use with CCA [similarly for ACQ] products
include hot dipped galvanised, stainless steel and other fasteners as recommended by the fastener
manufacturer.”93 Considering the serious implications that can follow a fastener failure due to
the effect of treatment, I find this lack of technical support surprising and disappointing. These
“manufacturer’s recommendations” simply are not readily available, if at all.94 I am loathe to say
say it, but there seems little option other than to follow the guidelines of their competitor. As an
order of non chrome, non arsenic treated timber is likely to contain either ACQ or Tanalith E,
regardless of what is specified, it would have been useful to know if ACQ had extra corrosion
resistance requirements to Tanalith E. Timber treated with ACQ is more corrosive than timber
treated with Tanalith E.95

The Pryda recommendations are even more helpful as they recognise different risks within the
marine environment breaking it up into different risk categories and locations within the build-
ing. But the Pryda recommendations push the risk in marine areas from 8 km as with Arch to
10 km from the coast. The recommendations apply to the whole range of their products, not
just nailplates and include post supports. In effect, 316 stainless or equal is recommended for all
external applications.

Distance from Ocean Cost Sheltered Bayside

Coast
Internal External Internal External
Up to 100m Z275 316 stainless Z275 316 stainless
100m to 1km Z275 316 stainless Z275 316 stainless
1km to 10km Z275 316 stainless No protection needed 316 stainless
Greater than 10km No protection needed 316 stainless No protection needed 316 stainless
Notes:
1. sheltered areas are to be considered as external as these can exhibit more corrosion than external as
they are not washed by rain and take longer to dry
2. Areas within a building, including the roof space, that are closed and non ventilated are classed as
internal
3. Equivalent corrosion resistance to Z275 and 316 is permitted. Z275 refers to 275 g/m2
Table 10. Corrosion protection recommendations by Pryda.6
6
The information in this table is drawn from Pryda. Corrosion..., 2-4.

In our experience the various industry recommendations, with their frequent reference to hot
dipped galvanised fasteners do not give adequate weight to the issue of fastener quality!

Fastener Quality
When the Tek patent expired, the Australian market was flooded with low cost, low quality
look-alikes. The protective coating could be down to 2-3 microns of electroplated zinc giving
only 25% of the corrosion protection of the original ITW Buildex product.96 The implications
93 Osmose. Naturwood ACQ. 2006, 2, Osmose. Lifewood CCA. 2006, 2.
94 Dr Saman Fernando, Manager, Engineering Research Development and Innovation for Ajax Engineered Fasteners
advised that Ajax did not have recommendations. Pers. Com. March 27, 2012.
95 In all cases, the ACQ H3.2 [corrosion] values ... were approximately 1.5 to 3 times that measured for the CCA H3.2
timber ... and CuAz H3.2. Kear. Corrosion..., 10.
96 Robinson. Fastener..., 16.

27
 for corrosion in any timber, let alone treated timber, through inadvertently using poor quality
coatings, is obvious. The demand of roofing manufacturers in 1981 that their screws be able to
withstand 1000 hours of the standard salt spray test led eventually to AS 3566 – Self Drilling
Screws. This Standard is unusual as it is a performance based specification and not a materials
specification. Unfortunately, the specifications for bolts are still a material specification.

Fig. 26. Australian made galvanised bolt after 50 Fig. 27. Imported galvanised bolt after 12
years service in Millmerran. Bolts were removed in months in Gatton c. 2003.
2001. Image courtesy of Timber Queensland.
These bolts were in similar applications and similar climates.

Many corrosion issues have more to do with fastener

quality than corrosion due to preservative. Commod-
ity lines of galvanised bolts are no longer made in Aus-
tralia - another industry lost to another flood of imports
- and again there are quality issues. I became aware of
this when I visited a boardwalk we had built just a cou-
Fig. 29. Stainless Deck Screw as ple of months after its completion. I noticed a piece of
removed after 8 years near Gatton, kerb timber that had passed inspection by the client but
Qld. I knew it should not have been used so sent an employee
to replace it. He reported that the galvanised bolts, that
had also been tar epoxied,97 had badly corroded to the extent that the tar epoxy had broken off.
I took some bolts of the same size from the same batch to Industrial Galvanisers and asked
them if they could tell me why these imported bolts had failed. They looked at them and said,
“That is easy. See how bright they are. They have been electroplated”. They said that they would
test them and get back to me. It appeared on check-
ing that they were indeed hot dipped galvanised and
were even well galvanised according to the Australian
Standard. They went on to say that obviously they
were not working and could not give a reason why!
The images show corrosion difference between a 50
year old Australian made bolt, that still has the galva-
nising and a 12 month old imported bolt. These were Fig. 28. Tar epoxy broken away with
used on the same species in a similar climate. corrosion underneath.

Because of the difference in performance, we always advise our clients to specify 304 stainless
bolts but few do. I have not been able to totally square in my conscience the fact that we use
galvanised bolts in many structures. At the time we were becoming aware of the problem, we
were negotiating a potential boardwalk order for well over $100,000. The boardwalk was right on
the coast. I priced using stainless bolts and advised the client accordingly. My competitor came
along and said “Galvanised fasteners were all that was needed”. I lost the order to a poorly per-
forming product. I have continued quoting stainless fasteners for coastal applications but came
to the conclusion that to have a totally clear conscience meant having no business, as I would
make few sales.
97 This is a recommended practice to inhibit corrosion. (Bootle, Wood..., 62). Research under taken by ITW Buildex
found that “HDG fasteners perform to a certain limit in the treated timber and that limit can be extended by using a top
coat on the galvanised product”. They advised that the best option of top coat that they had found was electro-coat
(E-coat).  Andrews, Derek. Pers. Com. 20 February 2012.

28
We still recommend that, in the absence of a performance based specification, designers should
be avoiding imported galvanised bolts. Our shelter shed range only uses stainless screws.

Preservation and Colour

Colour of Preserved Timber

Fig. 30. CCA (green) and Tanalith E Fig. 31. Treatment Colour Code by AS1604 indicating
(natural aged) treated girders. different treatment levels.
(images courtesy of Hyne)

There was a time when many considered that a piece of timber was not properly treated unless it
was green, the colour of CCA treatment. But timber treatments now vary dramatically in colour,
not only at the point of sale but also as the timber ages. This is partly from the preservatives used
and partly from colouring agents added to the treatments. The table below gives some guidance
to the colour. Note that not every preservative is suitable for both pine and hardwood and for
sawn or natural rounds. An example is natural pine rounds treated to H6. While the timber treats
well, the knot cluster does not treat at all and allows for severe degrade and failure of the post.

Treatment Colours
Chemical Form Hardwood Pine
ACQ Sawn Brown and eventually turning Green turning brown
natural silver grey
Round Brown but quickly turning natural Green turning brown
silver grey
Bifenthrin Sawn Not normally used Clear but frequently tinted
Boron Sawn Clear and remaining clear Clear and remaining clear
Round Not normally suitable Not normally suitable
CCA Sawn Green and remaining green Green and remaining green
to brown
Round Green and remaining green Green and remaining green
to brown
Creasote Sawn Dark brown (rarely used) Not used
Rounds Dark brown (rarely used) Dark brown
LOSP Sawn Natural (seasoned only) Clear but frequently tinted

29
 PEC Sawn Not used Not used
Round White/brown White/brown - seldom used
Permethrin Sawn Clear when untinted Clear but frequently tinted
Tanalith E Sawn Brown and eventually turning Green turning brown
natural silver grey
Round Brown but quickly turning natural Green turning brown
silver grey
Double treated Sawn Not suitable Not suitable
Marine H6
Round Dark brown Not suitable
Table 11. Treatment colours.

Additive colourings used on pine framing vary according to its intended use. An example of this
can be seen in the products produced by one Queensland manufacturer, Hyne. This company
manufactures a range of three treated and coloured pine framing products. The situation in 2011
is as follows: One of the three framings is sold as T2 Bluetm98 (H2F treatment) which uses an
envelope treatment approved in AS1604.1. Being envelope treated the pine is only suitable for
use south of the Tropic of Capricorn.99 Another Hyne product, T2 Redtm (a H2 treatment to
AS1604.1), has full sapwood penetration. As their framing is made from slash pine where the
heartwood is termite resistant100 there is no need to limit heartwood content in framing as would
be necessary with radiata.101 This more robust treatment makes the timber suitable for use north
of the Tropic of Capricorn. The difference is the necessity to deal with Mastotermes darwinensis
(giant northern termites).102 Hyne’s third coloured framing, T3 Greentm (H3 to AS 1604.1)103 is
azole permetherin treated, an LOSP treatment .104 All these products come with a 25 year guar-
antee. The envelope treatment of T2 Blue means that there is a very small uptake of chemical
so duplicated stock holding is economical. Treatment processes and chemicals are available from
a range of suppliers, and while manufactures are free to change processes, chemical suppliers
and chemicals for economic reasons the treatment colour coding remains fixed. In the framing
market there is a variety of trade names and processes but they all use the same colour coding
system as stipulated in AS 1604.1 – 2010.105 The hues vary between chemical suppliers however.
With the possibility of colour changes within an order, if the colour is important it is necessary
to plan for this by specifying that a uniform hue is achieved.

These colours are achieved by proprietary methods which utilise either dyes or pigments and are
required under AS 1604.1 – 2010 to be light -fast106. They should retain their colour in visible
weather-protected applications. However, while red and green colour coding may be acceptable
to some in visible timber, blue invariably is not. In reality, the red and green are not an architec-
tural quality finish and most would think it needs enhancing if the timber is going to be visible.
The colourfastness is said to vary dramatically depending on the dyes used by the preservative
manufacturer. If colour coded timber is an issue e.g. in architectural trusses, a treater who offers
clear treatment should be sought.

98 T2 Blue, T2 red and T3 Green are registered trademarks of Hyne.

99 http://www.hyne.com.au/our_business/hyne_t2blue.html Accessed May 15, 2011.
100 AS 5604 – 2005 Table A1. Note it is “termite resistant” not “termite proof”.
101 Radiata can still meet the H2 requirements by either carefully selecting the timber for sapwood content or by incising.
102 http://www.hyne.com.au/t2red/index.html Accessed May 15, 2011.
103 http://www.hyne.com.au/our_business/hyne_t3green.html Accessed May 15, 2011.
104 Stringer, Geoff. Pers. Com. May 16, 2011.
105 Clause 1.7.7 Table 3.
106 AS 1604.1 – 2010 requires a colour fastness rating of 7 to ISO 12040 which in clause 4.2.2 is rated as “excellent” but
industry contacts indicate that this is not always achieved and is probably not necessary. The framing only needs to be
sufficiently colourfast for the three to four months of the building project.

30
Pigmented treatments for weather exposed pine has been available in the UK and in the USA
for some years for waterborne preservatives such as Tanalith E. The tinted treatment for that
system in the UK is called Tanatonetm107. This additive enables the pine to achieve a permanent
rich brown colour, as opposed to its normal green (turning a light brown) when Tanalith E
treated. Because the brown colouring is primarily aesthetic, it needs more care. The manufacturer
recommends:

“Timber which is rip sawn, equalised, planed or heavily sanded must be returned to the
treatment plant for re-treatment. On no account are fence posts to be pointed after treat-
ment. The shortening of posts and columns should be avoided. In any event cross cutting
must be restricted to the top of the post or column”.108

Products such as Tanatonetm are now becoming available on the Australian market and can be
expected to represent a significant section of the treatment market. Australian trials have found
that there is sufficient colourfastness for the Australian climate, which was an issue with early
colourants.109

Colour as an Indication of Successful Treatment

When looking at a piece of treated structural hardwood, where the colour of the treatment is
not modified by stains, but just that of the treatment itself, a purchaser expects to see a strong
uniform colour. Is its absence an indication of inadequate treatment? There are two main visual
indicators that give rise to concern - blotchy treatment and a lighter colour than expected.

Occasionally I, or more correctly my customers, have observed and complained about what can
best be called “blotchy” treatment where the surface colouring from the treatment chemical is
not uniform. It gives the impression that the timber has not been treated correctly. When taking
a sample of the timber (shown above) and checking the penetration of the sapwood, full pen-
etration was achieved i.e. treatment was achieved despite appearances. This surface “blotchiness”
is caused by treating timber that has been rained on and has moisture on the surfaces inside the
pack. It is only cosmetic. The hardwood treater makes no other claims than that the sapwood is
fully penetrated with preservative at the correct level.

“Blotchy” Treatment

Fig. 32. Apparent non treatment of timber. Fig. 33. Full sapwood penetration was still achieved.

107 Tanatone is a registered trademark of Arch Timber Protection.

108 Arch Chemicals. http://resources.pihomebuild.com/sites/478/docs/specifiers_guide_tan_e.pdf.
109 Koch, Steve. Australian Customer Service Manager, Arch Wood Protection (Aust) Pty Limited. Pers. Com. May 16,
2011.

31
 Light uniform colour is sometimes an indi-
cator of low treatment but is no more than
that. The image shows CCA treated eucalypt
timber in a lodge I stayed in while visiting
Tanzania.110 The green tinge is barely visible.
I probed the support posts under the deck
which were a darker green (because they are
out of the sun) but were still very light. They
were showing severe decay after only five
years.

Unfortunately, timber that is correctly treat-

ed has a wide range of shades and can have
a lighter colour than expected. Colour itself
cannot be relied upon as an indicator of ef- Fig. 34. Light CCA treatment in Tanzania.
fective treatment.111

When is a Preservative not a Preservative?

To design professionals, the word “preservative” should conjure up well proven timber preserva-
tives such as CCA, Tanalith E and ACQ. They would also be very aware of the different hazard
levels from H1 through to H6. These preservatives are impregnated into the timber through a
vacuum and pressure process (VPI) using very expensive machinery under controlled and moni-
tored conditions. Timber treated to these levels does not come with an expiry date! What then
does the word “preservative” on a can of a “paint-on” product imply?

Fig. 35. CN Emulsion and CN Oil are examples of useful but permanent preservatives.

The term “preservative” is controlled by the APVMA, so a manufacturer cannot legally call a
product a “preservative” unless the APVMA has been provided with, and has accepted, scientific

110 Arch’s African guarantee for 50 years for H3 and 25 years for H5 only covers timber treated in South Africa and
Swaziland. This is probably wise. The guarantee was found at http://www.archchemicals.com/Fed/WOODSA/Docs/
Guarantee_Brochure.pdf.
111 The second deck in five years was just about ready to be replaced. When I spoke with the management there was
no comprehension about how to do a deck well and no willingness to spend the extra to do it well despite such short
service lives.

32
evidence that the product is effective in a certain application and make very specific claims
about the duration of its effectiveness. An example is Thomson White’s In-Ground Paste, a
copper napthenate (CN) emulsion paste. On the can we read where the product is to be used
– “Situation: Timber already in use or treated according to AS1604 and in ground contact or
other damp situations”. We also read its effectiveness. “Retreatment should be done every 3
to 5 years”. So clearly, this in-ground “preservative” does not have the effectiveness that you
are expecting from H rated preservatives. It is really only a supplemental aid – not the prime
treatment of the timber.

There is still a valuable place for such products and we would not consider building a struc-
ture without treating cut ends and timber-to-timber interfaces with a CN Emulsion. But such
products must not be considered as a substitute for correct preservative treatment and cor-
rect selection of natural durability. CCA has good UV blocking ability (not ACQ or Tanalith
E) whereas neither CCA, ACQ nor Tanalith E are water repellents. Their effectiveness is
enhanced by products such as OSA’s Tanacoat which contain both water repellents and UV
blockers.

When considering the use of paint-on “preservatives” read the claims very carefully. Does
it have any? I was not able to find any paint-on product that will achieve H3 or better pro-
tection. During 2007, OSA was instrumental in reporting a decking oil manufacturer to the
APVMA, and action was taken because of making unsubstantiated preservative claims about
its product.

A note on the use of CN Emulsion: Degrade at the end grain due to moisture absorption
is an area of design that has to be addressed seriously. CN emulsion is effective in counter-
ing this. The label directs that a 6mm coating be applied and it readily absorbs into the end
grain. On naturally durable and already treated hardwood timber-to-timber interfaces where
enhanced durability and water repellency is required, the application of CN Emulsion is also
recommended. If the emulsion is applied 6mm thick (in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions) it will simply squeeze out and contaminate the surroundings. We recommend no
more than a 1mm, maximum 2mm coating in these applications.

Preservatives are not Insect Repellents

Fig. 36. Cylindrical Auger Fig. 37. Cylindrical Auger Beetle. Image Courtesy of
Beetle attack. Doug Howick.

Over the thirty years that I have been producing timber products, there have been a few
(and only a few) occasions when insect attack on freshly sawn timber has been brought to
my attention. These infestations have always occurred in clusters with considerable periods

33
 between reports. The last outbreak was in 2007 and at the time, Arch Chemicals, the supplier
of our treatment chemical, advised that others had experienced the same attack.

With each infestation the same beetle was involved, the cylindrical auger beetle. Fortunately,
the infestation is only short lived as the insects desist after the timber has dried and cause no
structural damage. F14, a common specification but a very low grade for most unseasoned
Queensland hardwood112 has no limit to the number of these pinholes and F17 allows 20 holes
in a 100x100 section. That is not to discount the aesthetics of course.

Timber treatment only affects the sapwood and does not work as an insect repellent. Any insect
that burrows, without actually eating the timber is not affected by the treatment. Should eggs
be laid and they hatch out, the larvae are killed once they eat treated timber. This breaks the life
cycle. When the timber dries there is no further attack.

Special Considerations with CCA

How Dangerous is CCA?
While the western world has largely turned its back on CCA, worldwide it is still the most com-
mon preservative.113 Is the widespread use of CCA then just a matter of poverty taking the less
expensive option without due regard to the health of users? Or is it a reasonable response to the
evidence?

When the APVMA reviewed the scientific studies into CCA, which probably range into the multi
thousand, it concluded:

“Based on a consideration of the exposure to CCA treated timber products, in particular

children’s play equipment, there was no compelling evidence from the available data to con-
clude that there was likely to be an unacceptable risk to public health from arsenic from CCA
treated timber.”114

Their conclusion, in face of this less than overwhelming evidence, was “Evidence of health
problems associated with this use has not been proven. Because arsenic at higher levels is a car-
cinogen, and alternative wood preservatives are available, restrictions in some domestic applica-
tions will occur as a precaution.”115
CCA was removed from segments of the Australian market, not because it was proven danger-
ous but because it was not proven safe. Unfortunately, the APVMA could not agree with the
industry on the format of test regime whereby it may be proven to be safe.

The New Zealand Authorities reviewed the same data and came to a different conclusion. Their
report said “CCA-treated wood has also been in use for many years without discernible health
effects suggesting that if there is a true increased risk it is very small”.116 The New Zealanders
attempted to quantify the risk in that country. They maintain that an increased risk of one in
100,000 over a 70 year lifetime from exposure to a carcinogen was acceptable.117 The actual risk is

112 E.g. spotted gum, ironbark and blackbutt, an exception is forest red gum.
113 Jensen. Greg. Pers. Com. Feb 12, 2012.
114 APVMA. The Reconsideration of Registrations of Arsenic Timber Treatment Products (CCA and arsenic trioxide) and
Their Associated Labels - Report Of Review Findings And Regulatory Outcomes Final Report Part 1 - Toxicological
Assessment (Canberra, 2005) 19. The APVMA report was found at http://www.apvma.gov.au/products/review/docs/
arsenic_tox.pdf.
115 CSIRO. The Facts about CCA treated timber Page 7. http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Food-and-Agriculture/
CCATreatedTimber/CCA-safety-overview.aspx Date accessed, 21 April 2012.
116 Read, Deborah. Report on Copper Chrome and Arsenic Treated Timber. ERMANZ April 2003 http://archive.ermanz.
govt.nz/resources/publications/pdfs/cca-report.pdf. Date accessed, 21 April 2012, 57.

34
far less than this.118 Bear in mind that the very visit to a playground is probably more dangerous.
There are said to be in the order of 250,000 playground injuries in Australia each year, these are
real injuries and should put the unproven risk of CCA into perspective!119

The New Zealand study makes the observation “Despite uncertainty and potential overestima-
tion of cancer risk it would be prudent public health policy to reduce human exposure to arsenic
from all sources wherever feasible”.120 Yet the implications of this statement are enormous.
When we tested our employees for arsenic levels it was essential that they did not drink beer or
eat seafood for three days beforehand. If they did eat or drink these common items they could
give a false high reading because of their arsenic content. Wouldn’t consistency also require that
these also be banned?

But facts are worth very little when dealing with grandmothers who grew up with Arsenic and Old
Lace and young mothers who saw the fictional account of CCA poisoning in The Practice. There
are alternatives available to counter these perceptions and it is simply much easier to use them
than to fight against the tide. While there are alternatives to CCA available for most applications,
it is not simply a matter of specifying Tanalith E treated to H5 instead of CCA treated to H5
(which in many cases was over-specification). Because of the much higher chemical cost and the
availability of plants licensed to treat to the higher levels, these alternative treatments will prob-
ably not be realisable. As mentioned earlier, they simply never were achievable in sawn timber.

Fig. 38. A cartoon by Fiona Robbe.

Take care when specifying “timber treatments” to ensure you do not put yourself in a situation that
may require future remedial action or client complaints. CCA is still legal for some products such as
commercial decking (but illegal for domestic) but may still be rejected by the client.121

A few years ago, I addressed a timber treaters’ conference and while there spoke with a repre-
sentative of the APVMA. I asked, “Have all the products that are used in children’s playgrounds
been subject to the same scrutiny as CCA.” The reply was “I hope so.” The fact is they have not
been. This was confirmed 12 months later when I spoke at a Kidsafe conference on the subject
of treating. During lunch I sat near two manufacturers of rubber soft fall and they were express-
ing concern about the safety of their product. I have not been able to find studies on rubber soft
117 Read. Report…, 57.
118 Read. Report…, 56-9.
119 This figure was mentioned at a Kidsafe conference I spoke at a few years ago. Kidsafe Victoria give actual
hospitalisations from playground injuries at 6000 per year or roughly 10% of all children’s admissions. Kidsafe Victoria,
Action to Reduce Playground Injuries, http://www.kidsafevic.com.au/news/25-action-to-reduce-playground-injuries. Date
accessed 28 May 2012. Estimates of the number of injuries vary greatly. I have seen figures quoted varying between
100,000 to 500,000!
120 Read. Report…, 62.
121 A guide to acceptable use is available at http://www.outdoorstructures.com.au/pdf/cca_acceptable_usage.pdf. Not
every application is covered in this list, e.g. bollards.

35
 fall but like CCA it should be thoroughly investigated.122 The likely scenario is that when all the
products that we use in children’s playground have been subject to the same scrutiny as CCA
there is likely to be nothing left to design with!

CCA Fixation
Unlike other preservatives, CCA must undergo a period of “fixation” which stops the migration
of the chemicals. The copper and arsenic components of CCA work as fungicides and insecti-
cides. Chrome is added to fix these chemicals to the timber. This fixation does not happen until
a chemical reaction occurs within the timber. This reaction sees the “reduction of chromium
from the hexavalent to the trivalent state, and the subsequent precipitation or adsorption of
chromium, copper and arsenic complexes in the wood substrate.”123

When we were manufacturing CCA treated powerpoles we had to hold the poles in stock for
six weeks after treatment to ensure fixation. When I enquired about the reasoning behind this,
mention was made of a Canadian study which showed that, in mid winter, with presumably two
feet of snow on top, it did take this time. Fortunately we treated in sunny Queensland where the
weather is “beautiful one day and perfect the next”. Fortunately also, it has long been known
that the time taken to fix CCA is temperature related. One study showed that adequate fixation
could be achieved in only 120 hours at 25 C (77 F).124 In midsummer at 30 C (or even much
higher), holding timber to ensure fixation becomes a meaningless concept. Despite this, we were
contractually bound to hold pole stock for six weeks which caused untold and unnecessary com-
plications and additional cost which was passed on. Steam conditioning is a process that can be
used to further reduce this time also but seems pointless in the warmer states.

When I proposed relaxing this extended period and introducing a simple and established chemi-
cal test to establish fixation, this was not accepted by our customer. It appeared that it was a case
of regulation for the sake of regulation. As for material that was not contracted we did not hold
material once it was dry as we figured the remaining part of the short process could take place
just as easily out in the open on site as it would out in the open in our yard. No-one held six
weeks treatment under roof.

What can be Done with Existing CCA Infrastructure?

If asset owners are not prepared to maintain their structures they should pull them out imme-
diately, whether they are made of steel or timber, untreated or treated. Surely the danger from
a loose bolt is more real (and likely) than a possible risk from treatment? Wise asset manage-
ment dictates that timber infrastructure should be regularly maintained with a simple, effective
maintenance program, regardless of the treatment employed. This maintenance program should
include the simplest preparation and re-application techniques. Preparation should be able to be
performed quickly by unskilled labour. The product best fitting this description is penetrating oil.

The APVMA has no regulatory authority over existing structures constructed of CCA treated
timber and so has made no recommendation with respect to future action for existing struc-
tures. To date, regulatory authorities in the USA, Europe and Canada have not recommended
dismantling existing structures. However, the APVMA is aware that the USEPA is conducting an
extensive assessment of this issue.

122 Smith, A.H. Duggan, H.M. Wright C Assessment of cancer clusters using limited cohort data with spreadsheets:
application to a leukaemia cluster among rubber workers American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1994 Jun;25(6):813-
23 may be relevant.
123 Lebow, Stan. Fixation of CCA. (Granbury: American Wood Preservers’ Association. 1998) 1.
124 Leblow. Fixation..., 1

36
 CCA treated timber which is processed in Aus-
tralia is now illegal for many traditional appli-
cations. Serious concern (and almost panic) has
been expressed in many quarters about what to
do with existing CCA structures. Understand-
ably asset owners simply did not know what
to do with existing CCA treated infrastructure,
while the APVMA did not require existing CCA
timber to be removed even from children’s play-
grounds and their ruling gave no clear guidance
as to what to do with it, Sealing the timber with
a penetrating oil was suggested as a potential ef-
fective solution. They said:
Fig. 39. Leaching Trials.
“Information is limited on the possible benefits
of painting treated-timber (including existing
structures) to reduce possible risks. Some sci-
entific studies indicate that certain penetrating
coatings, such as oil-based semi-transparent
stains, when used on a regular basis may125 re-
duce the potential for CCA exposure. However,
there have been some questions raised about
the effectiveness of film-forming or non-pen-
etrating stains because of cracking, peeling and
flaking”.126

This suggestion is exactly the same as wise asset

management. However, the APVMA says MAY
Fig. 40. Contact Trials.
reduce exposure. Does it in actual fact work?

OSA asked Arch Chemicals who manufacture Tanacoat for us to

undertake testing to determine if this sealing does in fact happen.
Tanacoat has been proven to be remarkably effective in sealing
CCA treated timber. Under laboratory simulation, leaching of the
active constituents was reduced by 50% and transfer by physical
contact to virtually one twentieth.127 So, applying Tanacoat to tim-
ber allows the asset owner to maintain good timber maintenance
practices and deal with CCA at the same time.128

CCA Treatment and Fire

A long time ago we installed new cattle fencing in some timber
land we owned at the time. We used split hardwood posts which
are normal posts used in that location. As the posts contained a
lot of sapwood and which was going to decay, I thought I would
Fig. 41. Fire has
be wise and treat the posts with CCA. The logic is hard to fault
destroyed a new
but the end result was the opposite of what we intended. When
boardwalk.
the first fire came through, normally not much of an issue, we lost

125 Underlining and bold added by author.

126 APVMA, Reconsideration …, 15.
127 Detailed results are found at http://www.outdoorstructures.com.au/pdf/cca_timber_treatment_analysis.pdf and the
methodology used is found at http://www.outdoorstructures.com.au/pdf/cca_timber_treatment_methodology.pdf.
128 Further information on sealing CCA can be found on the USEPA website: http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/
meetings/2006/november/november2006finalmeetingminutes.pdf.

37
 most of the posts which burned completely to the ground. I realised very quickly that there can
be a major issue with CCA treatment and fire.

My fence was nobody’s fault but mine and was completely unintentional. You can only wonder
at the mentality of people who intentionally destroy infrastructure, built for their enjoyment
and the enjoyment of others. As much as we cannot understand it, vandalism by fire is a reality
we have to consider. Figure 41 shows graphically how a treated structure can succumb to fire.
Increased resistance to fire can be achieved by using timbers with a low spread of flame index,
applying and intumescent paint or by using fire retardant treatments.

Increasing Fire Resistance

in Treated Timber
Intumescent Paint
Normally a grass fire burns rapidly and, with relatively short grass, it passes under the boardwalk
doing little if any damage. This was obviously not the case shown in Image 41. This boardwalk,
built approximately 2001, was situated in a swamp and went through long grass. In the middle
of a drought, when it was only days old, someone set the grass alight. The fire was intense and
the long burning grass fell across the full length of the boardwalk and the whole structure burnt
to the ground. Our first thought was that the CN oil that we had used to coat the bearers, joists
and decking was the reason for losing the structure so completely. But when we checked with the
manufacturer we learnt that the flashpoint of the oil was very similar to that of the hardwood
used and so there was no increased fire risk with oiling. The problem was simply that there was
a source of flame over the whole length of boardwalk instead of a localized flame that you get
with normal vandalism. This poor boardwalk did not stand a chance.

The intense fire also saw the unoiled CCA H5 pine posts burn to the ground. It is difficult to
find a better foundation than a H5 CCA pine post. It has a design life of 50 years, is light and
inexpensive. They are also easy to carry in to sites with poor access. The drawback is that when
they are subject to fire they can experience “afterglow”, a phenomenon whereby when after the
fire source is removed they continue burning because of the effect of the preservatives. The
replacement boardwalk was re-built in timber but this time consideration was given to how to
avoid a repeat performance.

The posts, bearers, joists and the underside and sides of the decking were painted with Luxury
Paints fire retardant paint. The paint was tinted to be less obvious. The paint system was not
considered robust enough to be used on the face of the decking. The rebuilt boardwalk was still
performing well at the time of writing. How big a problem is fire in a hardwood boardwalk? To
my knowledge this is the only one I have lost in 14 years. We occasionally are called for a few
replacement boards but that is all. By careful choice of species with low Early Fire Index you
can reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Remember the ubiquitous F14, F17 specification does
not address this, but our Deckwood and Joistwood specification does. We deal with fire in our
Boardwalk Design Guide.

Pine of course is a different matter. It has an affinity with fire regardless of the treatment.

Treatment and Fire Retardants

Just as treating my fence posts with CCA was a reasonable assumption, so is adding an impreg-
nated (as opposed to a paint-on) fire retardant to try and ensure the integrity of a structure
during fire. Unfortunately, because of the presence of phosphorus, some fire retardants can
counteract the effect of the treatment and lead to premature failure. This can probably be coun-

38
tered by adding even more preservative it was reported129 however there were no data available to
determine what these levels should be. A specifier should be very careful when trying to combine
the treatment with fire retardants and should seek written advice from both the preservative and
the fire retardant suppliers.130

Preservation Warranties
Increasing Value of Warranties
Timber treated to the Acts or the Australian Standards does not come with a nominated service
life. Behind a wall and in the absence of fire there is no reason why, with some treatments, you
cannot talk about a possible life span in the hundreds of years. This is not the case when the
timber is exposed to the weather or used in ground. To add confidence and as a marketing aid,
manufacturers of treatment chemicals generally give a warranty on timber treated with their
products. The existence of these warranties, though now expected is surprising. A chemical sup-
plier is warranting a product made by someone else that they have little control over. The early
warranties said nothing meaningful so there was little risk but the warranties developed from
simple replacement to reinstatement so the situation is now remarkable.

A review of the guarantees available before the Introduction of the Australian Consumer Law
in January 2011 showed that they only covered insect, borer and fungal attack. Typically they
initially only covered the original purchaser for the replacement of the timber without the associ-
ated rectification costs or associated losses. Degrade such as the physical destruction of the pine
decking through constant wetting and drying was not covered. As well, the warranties did not
extend to commercial projects. An example of an older style warranty is the Koppers Hickson
“lifetime” guarantee which extended from the time the person purchased the timber to however
long they owned the property.131 Rights of redress under this warranty for Queensland and New
South Wales residents would have been far less than if they had taken action under their State’s
timber protection laws. As warranties evolved to the point where reinstatement also was covered,
the difficulty remained of putting years to a life expectancy when the Standards and timber pro-
tection Acts did not. The Building Code of Australia mentions a design life of 50 years which
led to public expectancy that guarantees should match.

The 2011 Act did away with the expression “merchantable quality” and replaced it with, “ac-
ceptable quality” which in its definition contains an express element of ‘durability’. “If a prod-
uct is not sufficiently durable (such that it breaks down earlier than a consumer would reason-
ably expect) then it is no longer necessary to prove that it had a latent defect at the time of
supply – all a consumer needs to establish is that a product failed early and was therefore not
sufficiently durable”.132 There are now nine consumer guarantees in the Act which clarify rather
than extend consumer rights. The Act introduces the idea of major failure where the customer
determines the remedy and a minor failure where the supplier decides. Without manufacturers
warranties, the purchaser now has very strong rights for redress.

Manufacturer’s warranties must not only protect the consumer guarantees mandated in the Act
but also draw attention to them through the words “Our goods come with guarantees that cannot be
excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. You are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure

129 Jensen, Greg. Pers. Com. 9 January 2012.

130 I encountered such a specification for a large boardwalk in Singapore. Despite supplying a letter from the manufacturer
of both the preservative and the fire retardant that they were not compatible and a shorter life would result, the
specification was not modified!
131 This guarantee was still on the Dindas website at the time of writing despite the changeover to Koppers Arch and then
Arch many years ago. The address was http://dindas.com.au/pdf/warranty.pdf.
132 Ebsworth H.W.L. Australian Consumer Law – Summary of changes. January 2011 URL http://www.hwlebsworth.com.
au/files/TP.pdf. Date Accessed 12 January 2012.

39
 and for compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the goods
repaired or replaced if the goods fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major fail-
ure.”

Warranties have needed to be rewritten to reflect the new Act. The new warranty issued by Arch
included a warranty period with different responses depending on age, in the case of H3 General
Use this covered product and labour costs for up to 10 years service, and then up to 25 years just
material replacement. H3 Decking is 7 and 15 years respectively. It is difficult to see any likeli-
hood of a claim.

One manufacturer reported133 that there are very few complaints about performance that pro-
ceed to actual warranty claims. Poor building practice, described as something outside of the
Building Code, will negate a claim, and reasonably so, as is using timber outside of the H level it
was treated to. Most claims are for H3 treated product, e.g. H3 pine decking that someone has set
pot plants on (raising this to H4 actual) or use of H3 pine in a tropical rainforest (really a H4 ap-
plication despite being officially classed as H3). In the drafting of this warranty it is understood
that the intent was initially only to cover treated fibres and not untreated/untreatable timber.
This has been an emphasis of this book. The wording was changed to cover the whole piece
with treated and untreated fibres so long as it was treated and used in accordance with recognized
standards.134 The warranty was extended to cover commercial, but not public infrastructure. Two
examples show the extent or lack of cover.

Warranty Example 1
The image shows a piece of very weathered treated
pine at a large holiday complex at Caloundra that was
only 9 years old. The whole deck needed to be re-
placed. The new Arch warranty would cover a com-
mercial application whereas earlier warranties would
not. But a warranty would not have assisted despite
the timber clearly failing. The timber has not decayed
nor been attached by insects. It is self destructing. The
species choice was poor. A durable hardwood such as
spotted gum or Ironbark should have been specified. Fig. 42. Degrade of pine decking after 9
years.

Warranty Example 2135

Should a piece of Blackbutt without sapwood be coloured with CCA it can be stamped H5 be-
cause it is a Durability Class 2 timber and no penetration is required for H4 and H5. It can be
then set in concrete in compliance with the Building Code. All of this is poor supply and building
practice but meets all necessary codes. A failure within a 25 year period is entirely possible. This
failure would be covered under the Arch warranty!

Some Preservation Case Histories

Some durability/serviceability issues with timber are very complex and the following real life
case history will assist the reader work through the issues of species properties, natural durability,
design and preservation
133 Jensen, Greg. Pers. Com. 12 January 2012.
134 Arch Wood Protection (Aust) Pty Ltd. Tanalised Outdoor Wood Guarantee: January 2012.
135 I have chosen this example as ground line attack has been demonstrated to be a problem of particular concern in my
home locality, the Lockyer Valley. Leightley. Technical..., 9, c.f. Greaves. Inspection..., 15 .

40
CityCat Terminals - A Natural Durability/Preservation
Dilemma

Fig. 43. Rubbing strips on CityCat Fig. 44. Bolts heads are quickly exposed as the
terminals. timber wears.

The old ferry terminals on the brackish Brisbane River were built on turpentine piles, the only
commercially available Australian hardwood with sufficient durability to withstand marine borer
attack. With the introduction of the modern CityCat service, modern materials were chosen to
build the new terminals. But the problem arose of how to stop the CityCats damaging them-
selves when moored up against the now steel piles. The answer - old tech timber. The piles have
fenders made of profiled timber rubbing strips ex. 100x50 which are mounted in a frame that at-
taches to the steel pile. These frames can be replaced as a unit when the strips are worn out. Out-
door Structures Australia supplied many of these rubbing strips. Standing out from the terminals
are free standing steel piles which the CityCats skew against to make quick changes in direction.

There are two requirements for these strips to succeed

• strong resistance to abrasion and impact
• high resistance to marine borer attack

For the first property the material of choice would be spotted gum. It is naturally greasy so
the boats would rub against it without damage to the aluminium hull. spotted gum is also the
material of choice for Australian manufacturers of striking tool handles. It is also a traditional
material for all components in boat building but, in that case, it would be used with anti-fouling
paint.136 Turpentine has the required amount of resistance to marine borer attack but does not
have good impact resistance. OSA supplied the rubbing strips in both species and neither was
very satisfactory.

The ideal piece of timber would have the properties of turpentine when it is submerged in the
salt water. Above the water, where the CityCats rub they would have the properties of spot¬ted

136 Despite its traditional use for this application, being in the lowest category of marine durability does make its use in
ship building questionable and must surely have required considerable maintenance.

41
 gum. Unfortunately, such a timber does not exist but can it be created? Theoretically yes. By
incising a spotted gum rubbing strip to a depth of 20mm and treating first with CCA and then
pigment emulsified creosote (PEC), a piece of timber with H6 properties is created, i.e. equal
to turpentine. In practice the answer is “No”. The sides are tapered so they cannot be incised.
Further, the abrasion from the CityCats would soon wear away the H6 treatment. The reality is
also that the Australian hardwoods are so hard that it is probably not possible to incise to the
correct depth.

So we have a situation where neither natural durability nor treatment nor a combination of the
two will provide an answer. I would suggest that an answer might be
• Use thicker timber so the time between changes is extended
• Use old tech turpentine piles for the skewing piles.

H5 (CCA) Applications in Playgrounds

Fig. 45. These playground posts cannot be H5 with CCA. (H5 in ACQ is
not readily available). Image courtesy of Contrast Construction

When a specifier asks for H5, in practice it can only be met in hardwood and pine in Queens-
land with CCA. What client is going to accept CCA these days for human contact? (Treatment
to H5 with the alternatives is theoretically possible but not easily commercially available). This
is an even greater problem when the posts are part of a children’s playground. Sometimes it is
necessary to do a “work around”. The playground illustrated has handrail posts that go into the
ground, a H5 (CCA) application which is not permitted. Our “work around” was to use Dura-
bility 1 In Ground timber and measured the required diameter under the sapwood i.e. a 200mm
post became a 225mm post. The sapwood was treated to H3 with Tanalith E. The sapwood
above ground will not degrade over its life span. Most likely, the sapwood in the ground will
remain intact also but it does not matter if it does not.

Untreated Hoop Pine Chamfers

If we take AS5604-2005 as our guide we would expect an untreated hoop pine (Durability Class
4 Above Ground) chamfer board to last a maximum of eight years.137 Yet against the odds there
are thousands of homes in Queensland clad in untreated hoop pine where the original boards are
over 100 years old? Can we expect that lifespan today? The short answer is “No”.

137 Table 1.

42
 Fig. 46. Untreated Hoop after 100 years. Fig. 47. Untreated Slash pine after 15
years.

In about 1992 I processed some untreated slash pine at a customer’s direction into cladding.
I advised against it but the builder’s argument was that as there were all these untreated hoop
pine clad buildings that are performing very well so his must also. Foolishly I complied with his
request. Initially, with a clear gloss over the pine the building looked great I have to admit, but,
in about 15 years. The cladding started to decay badly where there was shade. After almost 20
years there are patches of decay over all the weather exposed walls. What has changed over the
intervening 100 years?

Two factors have changed:

• The old hoop was from virgin forest and of higher quality and presumably more dense
and with less sapwood; and,
• The detailing of old structures was generally done to higher standard – e.g. bigger over-
hangs, verandas.

Performance of 100 years ago is no guarantee of an equivalent performance with modern fast-
grown plantation softwood timbers. Preservation in conjunction with successful old design prac-
tices (and they were not all successful) are required with today’s plantation pines.

Change in Hazard Level Over Time

The timber in the treated pine trussed
bridge illustrated is presumably treated
to H3. After the soil has encroached on
it (and really in any case where there is
less than about 200mm clearance), it has
changed from being a H3 to a H5 appli-
cation. The Timberlife design life predic-
tion software estimates the serviceability
(50 % strength) of a 150x50 treated to
H3 when used in an above ground ap-
plication of somewhere between 75 to
90 years and replacement at about 100
years. When the same timber is in ground
contact it only has a serviceability of 25
years!
Fig. 48. No side walls allow soil to encroach on H3 treated
I am not aware of a structural H5 incised timber
pine that could be used in the bottom
cord of this truss. This example shows

43
 that careful thought has to be given to design to ensure that the hazard level on the day of
construction is the hazard level that can be expected over the extended service life. This bridge
should have terminated with a concrete abutment incorporating sidewalls with the timber spaced
at least 50mm above the abutment.

Conclusion
Over many years, I have had to work through the frustrating complications caused by over-speci-
fication of timber treatment such as asking for H5 (CCA) or H6 (CCA and PEC) for applications
which are only H3. The lower H ratings can be easily met with new generation non-chrome,
non-arsenic treatments, whereas, with sawn timber, the higher ratings are impossible to meet
and always have been impossible to meet in a meaningful sense. In conjunction with over speci-
fication of treatment would often be poor specification (if at all) of natural durability and poor
building practices. This Guide to timber preservation has hopefully highlighted that, in reality, for
anything above H3, it is probably not going to happen on sawn timber. Success will be depend-
ent on a correct specification of natural durability and good building practices in conjunction
with an appropriate level of timber treatment.

44
Appendix

45
 Source of Images
Cover Treatment plant Arch Timber Protection U.K.
Fig. 5 Creosote treated Gunns Agricultural, Kalangadoo.
fencing
Fig. 6 Extreme degrade at Energex
groundline
Fig. 7 Soft rot Laurie Cookson of CSIRO
Fig. 11 Lyctus attack Trevor Smith, South Coast Home Check
Fig. 12 Lyctus Larvae Doug Howick
Fig. 17 Graveyard Trails Jack Norton, DPI Forestry
Fig. 18 End Attack of Pile Arch Wood Protection (Aust) Pty
offcut Limited
Fig. 22 Untreated marine Bligh Tanner Consulting Engineers
piles
Fig. 23 Encased iron bark Bligh Tanner Consulting Engineers
Fig. 26 Old Galvanised bolts Timber Queensland
Fig. 31 Colour coded Hyne
framing
Fig. 37 Cylindrical Auger Doug Howick
beetle
Fig. 38 Cartoon Fiona Robbe
Fig. 39 Leaching trials Arch Wood Protection (Aust) Pty
Limited
Fig. 40 Contact trials Arch Wood Protection (Aust) Pty
Limited
Fig. 45 Playground Posts Contrast Constructions

46
 Bibliography
Anonymous. “Fastener Durability in Timber”, Corrosion Management, Industrial Galvanisers, Ed.
John Robinson, (May 2005).

APVMA. The Reconsideration of Registrations of Arsenic Timber Treatment Products (CCA and arsenic
trioxide) and Their Associated Labels - Report Of Review Findings And Regulatory Outcomes Final
Report Part 1 - Toxicological Assessment (Canberra, 2005). URL: http://www.apvma.gov.au/
products/review/docs/arsenic_tox.pdf. Date accessed, April 22, 2012

Arch Wood Protection (Aust) Pty Ltd. Tanalised Outdoor Wood Guarantee, January 2012

Arch Wood Protection (SA) Pty Ltd. Guaranteed Peace of Mind: URL: http://www.archchemicals.
com/Fed/WOODSA/Docs/Guarantee_Brochure.pdf Dated Accessed, January 14,
2012.

Arch Wood Protection, Inc. and Arch Treatment Technologies, Inc Hardware Recommen-
dations for Treated Wood June 6, 2006: URL: http://www.archchemicals.com/Fed/
WOLW/Docs/corrosiontechnote.pdf Date accessed, 12 February 2012.

Bagley, S.T. and D.L. Richter. Biodegradation of Brown Rot Fungi in The Mycota, A Comprehensive
Treatise on Fungi as Experimental Systems for Basic and Applied Research Vol 10 Industrial Ap-
plications. Ed. By Karl Esser, Joan W. Bennett, H. D. Osiewacz. (Berlin: Springer-Verlaq,
2002).

Bluescope Steel. Corrosion, Contact With Timber Technical Bulletin CTB-13 Rev 4, 2008.

Bootle, Keith R. Wood in Australia, Types, properties and uses, Second Edition. (North Ryde: McGraw
Hill Australia, 2005).

Cambpell-McFarlane, Jacqueline. Creosote and its Use as a Wood Preservative. U.S. Environment
Protection Agency URL: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/creo-
sote_main.htm Date accessed, April 10, 2012

Carter Holt Harvey. Garden Walls. URL: http://www.chhwoodproducts.com.au/userfiles/6/

file/CHH075%20Garden%20Walls%20A5-v1.pdf Date accessed, 11 December 2010.

Carter Holt Harvey. Ironwood Landscaping URL: http://www.chhwoodproducts.com.au/iron-

woodlandscaping/. Date accessed, 11 December 2010.

CSIRO. The Facts about CCA treated timber Page 7. URL: http://www.csiro.au
/en/Outcomes/Food-and-Agriculture/CCATreatedTimber/CCA-safety-overview.aspx. Date
accessed, 21 April 2012.

Ebsworth H.W.L. Australian Consumer Law – Summary of Changes January 2011. URL: http://
www.hwlebsworth.com.au/files/TP.pdf. Date Accessed, 12 January 2012.

Davis, Robin I. Revised Jack Norton Corrosion of Metal in Contact with Wood Queensland Forest
Research Institute Timber Note 2, Revised August 1988.

Davis, Robin I. Timber Preservatives and Corrosion, International Research Group on Wood Pres-
ervation, Working Group III, Preservatives and Method of Treatment (Document IRG/
WP/3228). Prepared for the 14th annual meeting Gold Coast, 1983.

47
 Bibliography
Francis, L.P., J. Norton, Above-Ground Durability Estimation in Australia, Results after 16 Years Expo-
sure, International Research Group on Wood Protection, IRG/WP 05-20314. 2005

Greaves, H and K.J. McCarthy Inspection and Maintenance Procedures for Ground-Line Defects in Wood
Poles in Proceedings of the ESAA Pole Symposium, Gold Coast, 1980.

Greaves, Harry. Environmental Aspects of Wood Preservation. 22nd Forest Products Research Con-
ference, 1986.

Greaves, Harry. Current Trends in Protection of Timber. 13th All Australia Timber Congress Nov
1990.

Greaves, Harry. Pigment Emulsified Creosote (PEC) - Improved Oil-based Preservatives in Ann. Rev.
Div. Chem. & Wood Technol. (CSIRO, 1986).

Gunns Timber Products. Treated Pine Kiln Dried. URL: http://www.gunnstimber.com.au/prod-

ucts/pine/treatedPineKilnDried/index.php. Date accessed, 11 December 2010.

Hyne. Hyne T2 Red. URL: http://www.hyne.com.au/t2red/index.html. Date accessed, 15 May

2011.

Hyne. Hyne T2 Blue. URL: http://www.hyne.com.au/our_business/hyne_

t2blue.html. Date accessed, 15 May 2011.

Hyne. Hyne T3 Green. URLhttp://www.hyne.com.au/our_business/hyne_

t3green.html. Date accessed, 15 May 2011.

Kear, G. M.S. Jones, P.W. Haberecht. Corrosion of Mild steel HDG Steel and 316 Stainless Steel in
CCA CuAz and ACQ treated Pinus Radiata. Corrosion and Prevention Conference of the
Australasian Corrosion Association Inc, Gold Coast, 2005. Paper 064.

Koppers Wood Products Pty. Ltd. Treated Hardwood Marine Piles Case Studies Revision 0, 2009.

Koppers Wood Products Pty. Ltd. Treated Hardwood Foundation Piles - Case Studies Revision 0,
2009.

Lebow, Stan. Fixation of CCA. (Granbury: American Wood Preservers Association. 1998). This
document is attached to the proceedings of the Ninety-Sixth Annual Meeting of the
American Wood-Preservers’ Association San Francisco, 2000, Volume 96.

Leightley, L.E. Technical and Operational Aspects and In-Service Performance of Preservative Treated Poles
in Proceedings of the ESAA Pole Symposium, Gold Coast, 1980.

Li, Z.W., N.J. Marston and M.S. Jones. Corrosion of Fasteners in Treated Timber (Study Report
SR241 2011) Branz, 2011.

Mai, C. and Militz H. Chemical Wood Protection in Wood Production, Wood Technology, and Biotechnologi-
cal Impacts. Kues, Ursula (Ed). (Universitatsverlag Gottingen, 2007).

Osmose. Naturwood ACQ. 2006.

48
 Bibliography
Osmose. Lifewood CCA. 2006.

Pryda. Technical Update - Corrosion resistance of Pryda products. Feb. 2012.

Pryda. Technical Update - Corrosion resistance of trusses over enclosed swimming pools. March, 2009.

Queensland Government. Timber Utilisation and Marketing Act (Queensland Government Print-
er, 1987).

Read, Deborah. Report on Copper Chrome and Arsenic Treated Timber. ERMANZ April 2003 URL:
http://archive.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/publications/ pdfs/cca-report.pdf. Date ac-
cessed, 21 April 2012

Riverland Treated Pine. URL: http://www.riverlandtreatedpine.com.au/FAQ.html. Date ac-

cessed, 11 December 2010.

Solver Paints L.O.S.P. Treated Pre Primed Timber SS-127 January 2008. URL: http://solverpaints.
com.au/documents/msds-pdf/10-SECTION%20SS%20%20(Specifications%20&%20
Surface%20Prep.)/SS-127.pdf Date accessed, 30 January 2012.

Timber Preservers Association of Australia Fasteners in CCA Treated Timber. URL http://www.
tpaa.com.au/fastenerscca.htm Date accessed, 25 March 2012.

Timber Queensland. Technical Data Sheet 22, Light Organic Solvent Preservative Treated Timber. March
2006.

Wallis, Norman K. Australian Timber Handbook. (Sydney: Angus and Robinson, 1956).

Wilkinson, J.G. Industrial Timber Preservation. (London: Associated Business Press, 1979).

49
 Contact Details
Ted Stubbersfield, 33 Lake Apex Drive, Gatton, Qld, 4343, Australia.
Ph: 07 54625 532 E: edgarstubbersfield@gmail.com
W: outdoorstructures.com.au

Other Publications Written for or by Ted Stubbersfield

Light Bridge Manual Commercial Barrier Traffic Control

Guide

Life Plus Decking Boardwalk Design Deckwood Selection

Guide Guide Guide

Deck and Boardwalk Understanding AS2082 The 7 Deadly Sins of

design Essentials Timber Design